Vintage Corvettes, Tires & Safety: Your Opinion

[Bill Braun 33186]

Why...

would I want to do that? I'm not tired of life. My parents taught me common sense (but gave up on teaching diplomacy).
What I AM tired of is trying to think how I need to protect myself from some half-wit who doesn't have the common sense to protect himself. Understand something - I am making no accusations or inferences, but aren't you getting just a bit tired of reading all the stories of some person getting a huge settlement for violating a simple rule of common sense? I know I am. I am also tired of watching my insurance premiums rocket because some legal tapeworm has to come up with some convoluted argument to satisfy a jury of mental defectives, who are - let's face facts here - just interested in getting the hell out of there and consequently will award anything to anyone. Civic duty? Don't make me laugh!
The system is self-propagating: this week the jurors give the plaintiff a fat settlement and next month that same juror is thinking, "Damn that's easy money, what can I do?" It's like a lottery. The newspapers play it up real big so they can sell more ink, the lawyers appeal (the newspapers play that down), and in the end the plaintiff gets a cruller and a cup of coffee, the defendant gets to pay and the legal trypanosome walks away with a fat wallet and a s**t eating grin, looking for the next sucker. I know at least six doctors who gave up practicing medicine because half the people in the waiting room are laywers waiting to tap the first dissatisfied patient. I know a veterinarian who nearly lost a practice because FiFi ran out in front of a car and the vet lost the mutt on the table.

Don't you think the system needs a bit of tweaking?

I think it's DECADES overdue.

Still like old Vettes though.



Bill Braun 33186

[Bill Braun 33186]

Yo Gunner...

you gotta get that car back from #1 - you got waaaaaay to much time on your hands

btdf

[Bill Braun 33186]

Gunner...

Does CYA stand for Californians Yield Always?



btdf

[Todd H 26112]

Re: Implied intent?????????

As far as flippantly dismissing further discussion because of a belief a release protects us I harken back to a lesson I learned as a new driver. When I'm on a major road and observe a car approaching on an intersecting road that has a stop sign, do I simply proceed under the presumption that the all caps STOP sign will do it's magic? No. I lift off the pedal briefly and watch closely for a sign the car is indeed slowing to a stop before proceeding. Risk Management.

In a perfect setting let's say such releases prove victorious for NCRS in the end. But such release do NOT preclude the initial legal battle in the first place. Again, what I'm talking about is NOT winning a legal battle so much as AVOIDING it in the first place. The cost of winning such a battle may prove to be a Pyrrhic victory.

Do you actually believe such injuries could be limited to NCRS members signing a release? Did the bicyclist who lost part of a leg due to a passing vintage car suffering a 40 yr old tire failure SIGN this NCRS release? Afterall when his lawyer went after teh car owner he started squawking in an attempt to deflect blame that he was only trying to maximize his 'points', ill-advised though it may have been, per some organizations published guidelines. 'You mean some organizations told you to do this?' 'Well uh, yeah, sure'. Rediculous? Yes. Possible? ...?

I presume all such releases are signed PRIOR to departing from one's house for any NCRS activity and covers all such activities until returning home. Besides do you really think this exposure is purely limited to attending a specific NCRS event or returning from it? Do you really think it's limited to those people who are members and own old Corvettes? Are not such publications sold to the general public? Isn't NCRS a publisher and author? Maybe some idiot gets a publication before joining and goes out to 'practice' on his 40 year old tires?

Do such releases really hold up in courts where there are 3rd party victims and seeking damages for injury, death or dismemberment?

In reality all sorts of hobbies and industries put forth their version of such releases. But the dirty little secret is these (bold letters and all) are largely considered a mild though advisable deterrant. Such releases can sometimes be dispensed with like a hot knife thru butter when dealing with parties that never signed it, personal injuries or with organizations that influence the operation of vehicles and tires beit a tire manufacturer, an automobile manufacturer or a publisher/author or a private not for profit national organization influencing the activities of 15,000 members. Such releases are certainly well advised and may offer a sense of complacency but immunity? Let's hope we never found out the true answer to that the hard way. It will be an expensive answer regardless. Again, I'd much rather avoid the question altogether than find out whether a piece of paper offers sufficient protection and immunity.

But having said that, such agreements are a perfect example of NCRS engaging in a good 'risk-management 'practices.

Not judging original brake hoses is perhaps another example of 'risk-management'. (if the release grants immunity why can't we judge original brake hoses and receive due credit and points?)

But is publishing a manual that independently rewards the driving of a car and the the installation of original tires on the car respectively and then combines said reward points cumulatively without pointing out the potentially mutual exclusivity of these two behaviors regarding tires an example of good 'risk-management'?

And let's remember there are 15,000 members these manuals speak to with at least that many cars and probably more amongst them. And anybody can buy one.

So far the response I'm hearing are:
A) Yes it's a potential exposure worth discussion and consideration
B) No, we expect 15,000 members to all behave w/ common sense
C) No, we have people sign a release and operate under immunity

Personally I used to agree w/ 'B' fully and now 'up to a point'. But here that point is that the tire thing has really become somewhat of a hot button legally, technically and otherwise and a LOT more folks with law degrees are becoming tire experts these days hungry for business. They likely cull the national databases on accidents looking for victims of tire related accidents. It's now become a legal specialization unto itself it seems. The car industry knows this. The tire industry knows this. Does NCRS?

[Todd H 26112]

Which tire would YOU choose?

Which would YOU choose and why?

If you were selecting a set of modern service replacement radials to replace an out of service tire size.... You noted the specific brands and size listed in the published Judging Guide by NCRS and the points these give you vs an incorrect (according to NCRS) size and/or brand being installed.

But then you also notice the service replacement tire size designated by NCRS as correct is not the same size tire any manufacturers are presently recommending for your application as a service replacement. And upon further inquiry you find that every tire maker is explicit in NOT recommending the size NCRS publishes as the 'correct modern service replacement'. They do however offer several other sizes (full-deduct according to NCRS) that they are willing to recommend as service replacements and will even do so in writing.

Now sometimes in life we can't have our cake and eat it too. The car will at some point be driven and at some point be judged all with the same tires installed. The clock is ticking... So given those two choices which would you select? (1)The brands/size selected by NCRS as NCRS correct service replacements OR (2) one of several sizes recommended by the tire manufacturer of your choice? Why?

Thanks,

(we should keep in mind that since many of the guides have been originally published by NCRS, tire makers, unlike NCRS, operate under increasingly scrutinized risk intollerant conditions when they take on the role and responsibility of providing tire recomendations. As such, the tire or size they may have happily recommended years ago may not be the same tire they willingly recommend today. I have no doubt our NCRS publications were written with the best intentions and information available at the time and represent an impressive body of work. But in modern times there seems a change in the wind affecting the entire tire industry in the wake of the Ford/Firestone related deaths compounded by our litigious society. This may or may not impact upon other organizations besides tire and auto manufacturers such as NCRS that take it upon themselves to also make specific tire recomendations or designate service replacements to a given population. Time will certainly tell.)

[Todd H 26112]

Re: Vintage Corvettes, Tires & Safety: Your Opinio

Here's a interesting post that is 'similar' to this discussion I just found while searching under "Tires" in the archives:

Re: Tire question for the Judges
John Hinckley -- Thursday, 10 July 2003, at 11:16 a.m.
=========================================

Yup, how about this - our organization professes to encourage driving and enjoying our classic Corvettes, but only allows full judging credit to tires that are patently unsafe and dangerous to drive on; it doesn't matter if those old tires "appear" checked or cracked or deteriorated or not - 30-40-year-old tires, even if they "look" perfect, are a serious safety hazard just due to aging of the compounds and materials. All this does is enrich the few people who have hoarded those old non-DOT tires and peddle them at astronomical prices to people who only "drive" their Corvettes on and off hermetically-sealed trailers. This safety-related tire judging paradox needs attention. I'll go back to sleep now
=========================================




Judging Tires from NCRS bulletin board July-03

[John M.]

Re: Which tire would YOU choose?

I think the answer to this question is pretty simple. I would buy the tires that got me the least point deduct for judging and the best tire money could buy for driving. I am not personally aquainted with anyone who has their car judged seriously who drives on the same tires that are judged! My car went to every show on a trailer with the repro bias ply tires on it, and the radials were put back on it as soon as it returned home. I have heard this same argument used over and over again to try to get more points for incorrect tires, but changing tires for a show is only a 5 minute job and is not a terrible inconvience. If this is too much trouble for someone, then I submit that they probably would not be involved in flight judging anyway.

Regards, John McGraw

[Earl G.]

LOL *NM*

[Earl G.]

Re: Which tire would YOU choose?

Todd,

Well, this has been an interesting thread to say the least. Here is how I see the whole thing:

1. Are tires a safety item?
2. Are brake lines a safety item?
3. Does NCRS make exceptions re: original v repro for safety items?
4. Should NCRS be consistent regarding safety items re: original v repro?
5. Does the JG leave NCRS open for "possible" legal action?

You know my answers to the above questions, but i'm not in charge, and yes if want to play the game, then you have to play by the rules of the game be they right or wrong.

Earl

[John H.]

Re: Vintage Corvettes, Tires & Safety: Your Opinio

Yup, and I haven't said anything different since that thread was active - I was groaning about the necessity of spending a fortune to buy old "judging tires" that aren't safe to drive on, just to get maximum points credit. Never said you had to drive on them or that NCRS requires you to drive on them, because they don't - you just have to have them on the car on the judging field to get maximum points credit, even if you just changed them in the parking lot.

[Dick W.]

Re: Which tire would YOU choose?

To the best of my recolection (I have a terminal case of NCRS disease) the tires spelled out in the JG is the direct replacement tire recommended by the RMA cross reference guide.

I think that the reason you have dealers recommending other sizes is that some of the tire sizes in the JG are not real popular and therefore they do not stock them. Also, I see a lot of personal preference shown by tire dealers. i am not trying to take anything away from them, because as a group they are very knowledgeable.

I do not think that you will have any tire troubles with the tires in the JG.

[Todd H 26112]

Re: Which tire would YOU choose?

Hi Dick,

What I'm thinking of is the tire manufacturers themselves that are explicit about saying "no" to some tire sizes on certain wheels which NCRS has designated and published as 'service replacements'. And tire manufactureres themselves explicitly recommend tire sizes that NCRS says 'no' to themselves. For example Consider the 215/70R-15 'service replacement' tire on an 8" wide rim that NCRS publishes as a service replacement. Thus far not a single tire company I am aware of will validate such a claim as far as I can tell. Indeed, tire manufacturers will specifically and absolutely refute NCRS' claim that this is the service replacement tire for this rim width. Tire manufacturers will provide one or even several other tire sizes that they do consider service replacement all of which of course NCRS discourages with full deductions.

My experience is tire dealers/installers will typically make recommendations in accordance with manufacturers by and large. Most dealers are probably unaware of the alternate recommendations in tires offered by NCRS in some cases but still most are familiar with the old adage of the 'customer is always right' up to a point (though they too likely don't want any liability either if the application difference is excessive).

As far as tire-to-tire cross reference guides go, they only tell part of the tale. Such an approach may well ignore the actual application being considered. Indeed most such cross references usually include such 'advice' in their fine print. The point is, unless you also consider the actual application, you may not get the correct result.

So to be sure, one is placed in a clear cut 'either-or' situation of choosing a tire size that is the 'service replacement' per NCRS but specifically exceeds published tire manufacturers specifications (presuming a tire shop will install a tire in a manner not compliant with manufacturer specs) ...
-or-
choosing one of several tire sizes designated by manufacturers themselves as service replacements but NCRS fully deducts as non-service replacements. Thus my question out of curiosity - which do folks choose?

In my opinion, this places individuals in an uncomfortable position of having to decide which authority on tires to trust more, NCRS or tire manufacturers.

Thanks!

[Todd H 26112]

Re: Which tire would YOU choose?

Earl,

One particularly interesting discussion would be on that focuses more on the apparent differences in answers for questions 1 and 2. A previous thread participant stated that brake hoses were unique in that they rotted from the inside out and that was the reason. However my experience is that rubber brake hoses show cracks on the outside and by then they are long overdue for replacement. It's also been mentioned here and elsewhere the lack of cracks visible on ancient tires is not in and of itself an indicator of acceptable safety. I guess I haven't seen much of an in depth discussion on why different answers are apparently given by NCRS on # 1 and 2 above and was hoping for more insight here.

At one point in judging I believe NCRS does call upon judges to determine "If, in the opinion of the judges, the condition of the tires, including the spare, constitute a _SAFETY_ hazard in the operation of the vehicle, additional deductions must be made up to FULL DEDUCT on condition." Now that's interesting in several regards. However no further information or training is provided to judges on how to make this determination. Is the awarding of partial or full points vis-a-vis a commendation as to the safety of ancient tires as not being hazardous? Was NCRS or it's judges not comfortable with making such safety determinations w/ respect to brake hoses? Does any potential liability exist for NCRS or their judges that signed a scoring sheet and gave full or nearly full credit for ancient tires as to condition and an unfortunate accident occured immediately or shortly after involving said tires?

Other exceptions for the inclusion of non-original components in the name of safety includes fire extinguishers and battery cut-off switches. But tires only in a limited fashion after hefty deductions and in some cases with tires that the tire manufacturers themselves do not specify.

But I agree, it's been an interesting thread as far as it's gone. This thread will always stand in the archives in mute testimony should no further consideration be given and unfortunate events come to pass. But let us hope not!

thanks,

[Mike Cobine]

Which tire would YOU choose? - something different

> In my opinion, this places individuals in an uncomfortable
> position of having to decide which authority on tires to
> trust more, NCRS or tire manufacturers.

This is a no-brainer - the tire manufacturers. They build tires, NCRS doesn't.

The day an organization could force me to do what they say with my car on my time is the day I would quit the organization.

What I would do is simple. I would run any tire and wheel combination I feel like on the street, when driving, when stored, whenever.

And if having my car judged, I would have the proper NCRS wheels and tires to be installed for that time in the show field.

If one can't figure out how to do that, then they have no business driving a Corvette, or any car, in the first place.

[Todd H 26112]

Re: Which tire would YOU choose? - something diffe

"If one can't figure out how to do that, then they have no business driving a Corvette, or any car, in the first place."

Should one be the business of authoring, publishing and selling to the public judging guides that define a service replacement tire that is not in agreement with tire manufactureres? ...and advocate driving?

And before we judge people unworthy of driving Corvettes or any cars too hastily perhaps we should stop and realize that the partial points of a service replacement may appeal to someone seeking a convenient dual use tire rather than having to resort to shipping extra tires ahead or having to travel with chase vehicle or trailer in tow when attending an event or some other method of lugging about 8+ tires in total. I understand that carting 8 tires about is common sense for many here but is it any ones place to presume such is true for 15,000 members? Just a thought.