18 ms·

Goodyear Hid Evidence of 'The Worst Tire in History' Linked to at Least 9 Deaths

152 points by Huhty 9y ago

kevin_thibedeau 9y ago
> the tires were designed to handle a sustained temperature of 194 degrees Fahrenheit when traveling at highway speeds between 65-75 mph. In excess of 200 degrees, the tire ran the risk of tread separations. Doesn't seem like there was much margin in the design. How was this even allowed to be sold?
- wccrawford 9y ago
  Because tires don't usually get that hot? https://www.caranddriver.com/columns/a-look-behind-the-tire-hysteria https://www.caranddriver.com/columns/a-look-behind-the-tire-... >How hot does the tire get? Typical tires experience a temperature increase of roughly 50 degrees after running on the highway for a half-hour. If it's a 70-degree day, this suggests a tire temperature of about 120 degrees. So even at 120 degree weather, you'd only expect the tires to reach 170 degrees. That's still far below the 194 that they're rated for.
  - briffle 9y ago
    That is for passenger car/ light truck tires. These were much higher load ratings, heavier, and much, much larger. Most are inflated to 75-110 PSI, and each Tire can carry around 3600lbs (at least in the G670 that replaced it)
  - cavanasm 9y ago
    Goodyear had test results indicating the tire would get to 225 degrees or higher when operating at 65-75 mph.
  - themacks 9y ago
    In 100 degree weather, fairly common in the south, the road surface temperature would be significantly higher, upwards of 150 to 175.
    - ChrisLomont 9y ago
      I cannot find anywhere listing road temperatures nearing 175 F. Do you have a source? Most I find are like this [1], which would allow a max road surface temp at 100F air temp at the equator with the sun directly overhead on a perfectly clear day to reach around 148F. (see equation 17 in the paper). The rest of the literature I have found is similar. I doubt roads in the US south reach 175, and likely not even 150. [1] http://www.ijirae.com/volumes/Vol2/iss8/01.AUAE10083.pdf http://www.ijirae.com/volumes/Vol2/iss8/01.AUAE10083.pdf
      - merpnderp 9y ago
        On hot days I like to take my laser temp gun and shoot roads and other things, and I've never seen anything over 140F.
        ChrisLomont 9y ago
        Out of curiosity, what is the hottest background temps you think you've checked in? Any around 100 F ambient?
        pbhjpbhj 9y ago
        Not parent: >Dr Howard Robinson, chief executive of the Road Surface Treatments Association, says most roads in the UK that experience a reasonable amount of traffic will start softening at 50C. >[...] >And dark road material can absorb a lot of heat. The typical summer ground temperature is higher than air temperature. Robinson says roads "regularly" reach a temperature of 50C and above. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23315384 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23315384) // 50 deg C is 122F; but this is UK with air temps of ~30 deg C
        ChrisLomont 9y ago
        Yeah, I read that too. 30C is 86 F. The OP above mentioned a 100 degree day, 14 degrees warmer, and the formula and paper I referenced above would put the surface temp of the road would also only rise 14 degrees, to 136 F on a 100 degree day. The OP claimed 150-175 is common on a 100 degree day. No research I can find (except one single author) is anywhere near that amount.
- venomsnake 9y ago
  Isn't speed limit 55mph? And doesn't this gives some wiggle room for goodyear - after all the tire was operated outside of the conditions.
- WalterBright 9y ago
  I just can't see driving an RV at 65-75. It's not a sports car.
  - fotbr 9y ago
    Take I-70 across Kansas. Or I-80 across Nebraska. If you're not doing 75, you'll be run off the road by traffic (including RVs) going much faster. You don't need sports-car maneuverability on big, fairly light-traffic interstates.
    - WalterBright 9y ago
      Take a look at the tires on a sports car, and the tires on an RV. They're very different. It's isn't just the handling, it's their ability to withstand the centrifugal forces and heat from high speed.
  - jhayward 9y ago
    I take it you've never driven in the American west. From San Antonio to El Paso interstate 10 is 550 miles of extremely smooth, well designed divided highway with speed limits of 80 mph for much of the way. There is almost nothing of interest between those two points, esp. if your trip objective is somewhere west. You'd be insane to not run at the maximum safe speed of your vehicle. Many RV trailer tires are only rated to 65 mph, although there are some 80 mph rated ones becoming common because people are so tempted to gain back those extra hours of travel time slowing to 65 involves.
    - cryptonector 9y ago
      Well, you don't want to drive "at the maximum safe speed of your vehicle" all the time. You should want some margin for error. But many many cars sold in the U.S. have maximum safe speeds well in excess of 120mph. As for an RV... driving an RV faster than 70mph seems a bit scary to me, but then, I've never driven one.
      - jhayward 9y ago
- cryptonector 9y ago
  "Because you shouldn't speed!" Of course, that's silly (but you know there will be moralizers ready to say that, often the sort who wouldn't yield the passing lane to speeders). First, we have highways with higher speed limits anyways (up to 85mph in the U.S.). Second, people speed -- our highways and cars are generally designed to tolerate much higher speeds. I have seen caravans of cars drive up the NJ turnpike at speeds in excess of 130mph.
virgilp 9y ago
But... why? I will never understand the thinking that goes into doing stuff like this, especially within a mega-corp. It's the same as with diesel-emissions cheating: if you're successful with that product, you're basically guaranteed to get caught eventually. And if you start from the assumption that it's not going to be a successful product... why even bother?
- BankaiTiger 9y ago
  Going ahead with the bad product has higher payoff than not or later on. I imagine that's how they made the decision if the knowledge was widespread.
- ivanbakel 9y ago
  I'd imagine part of it is the timeframe of "eventually". Why care that the company will be in ruins later, if it makes you rich now and you think you'll be out the door before the apocalypse comes? Of course, there's a simpler answer: because they think it will be profitable. The aggressive settlements described in the article might even have been a part of the original calculations in just how much money could be made.
- darkerside 9y ago
  > you're basically guaranteed to get caught eventually That seems like an unwarranted assumption rooted in confirmation bias. It seems like everyone gets caught... because everyone we know about gets caught. There could be legions of cases like this that we never find out about.
  - virgilp 9y ago
    > unwarranted assumption rooted in confirmation bias I'd say it's rooted in statistics: 1. Take this tire. If you know that there's a high chance it will blow up, then ... the more you sell, the more tires blow up in the wild; the more tires that blow up, the more injured & dead. The more injured & dead - the more likely you are to get caught. The end-to-end equation is "the more tires you sell, the worse your chances to get away with it". 2. Dieselgate: it's different, in that nothing "blows up". But still, the more cars you put on the road, the higher the chance one owner/mechanic will notice it. Maybe your "chance of detection" doesn't increase dramatically with the success of the product (though it definitely does increase), but the impact of it being detected increases linearly with the number of cars sold! This is still a very bad equation, since VW had zero deniability - once the cheat was detected in one car, it could be easily reproduced in all. It just doesn't seem to work out, from a risk-benefit perspective. Maybe only if you're looking very short term?
nimos 9y ago
Seems kind of crazy things can be sealed like this in cases regarding public safety.
- sjsbsh 9y ago
  The sealing is annoying, cause the courts are doing that. But dragging discovery or not doing it honestly... that’s what Uber is doing right now (judge is peeved about it too)
- kevingadd 9y ago
  There was a recent incident where an assault victim was forbidden from speaking at her attacker's sentencing (criminal!) hearing because of a non-disclosure agreement attached to a past civil settlement. The US's approach to secrecy is... a mess.
reificator 9y ago
Depending on how many people used these tires, the "Worst Tire in History" only claiming nine (reported) lives is actually pretty good. Auto collisions being what they are I'm curious as to the actual numbers behind different tires.
- oh_sigh 9y ago
  That is 9 deaths directly attributable to the tires. It's not like there were just 9 fatalities in car accidents where the cars just coincidentally had that tire.
- No1 9y ago
  From the article > Those numbers are almost certainly higher in reality: in court, Goodyear admitted it has received at least 98 injury and/or death claims over the tire.
- cavanasm 9y ago
  The tire was not in wide circulation. There were only around 160,000 ever made, and most of those were presumably sold for delivery vehicles, which is what they were supposedly designed for. The problem is that some number of those 160,000 were put on RVs, where they're seemingly a time bomb.
ams6110 9y ago
Goodyear certainly seems to have a big piece of the responsibility here. But I don't hold the RV manufacturers blameless -- they were the ones selecting and buying a low-speed commercial delivery vehicle tire for a passenger application. Also I'm inclined to believe that many owners didn't inflate them properly. A high load range tire will have a much higher pressure than passenger car owners are accustomed to. Most people just inflate their tires to about 30PSI and that's generally fine for a passenger car. Most consumer tire pumps or inflators would probably have difficulty getting to the proper pressure which can be twice that more than a normal passenger car tire.
- Johnny555 9y ago
  Did the RV manufacturers know it was a low-speed commercial delivery tire? Goodyear apparently marketed it to the RV industry: In a lawsuit filed later against Goodyear, the Woods family accused the company of selling a defective tire that had been marketed to recreational motorhome makers, even though it knew the G159 couldn’t handle highway speeds when equipped on an RV. What's not clear is whether or not the speed rating was known.
- mmariani 9y ago
  Any decent track pump can easily get to an order of magnitude higher. I routinely pump bike tires to 125 psi. Back to the point, tires are the most important piece of kit in regards to driving/riding handling quality, and usually one of the most underestimated. I wish people in general paid more attention to the state and quality of their tires.
  - totalZero 9y ago
    The problem isn't solely the level of pressure, it's also the time it takes to reach that pressure. If you are running a little electric pump to get a truck tire to 60 PSI, it's going to take a long time even if the pump doesn't overheat and burn out.
    - mmariani 9y ago
      You just gave me a great idea. My car has a smat electric pump that I don’t trust. I’m going to store in the car a compact track pump in case I have to use the patch kit. Thanks for the insight on the lateral thinking.
S_A_P 9y ago
Im still trying to grapple with this one. Its not like Goodyear doesn't have other tires. If they know these things will cause accidents(or over the years learned this was happening) why did they not alter the design? I know it must come down to a cost vs benefit analysis but I cant see how they would come out ahead with a "deadly" tire.
- sjsbsh 9y ago
  1) they don’t have to re-tool getting more profit from the production line. 2) the tyre was probably just barely not good enough for RV use - but a lot cheaper to manufacture. Mix obvious profit with an FU attitude in management, and it goes to market.
- tomkarlo 9y ago
  Even if they made an entirely rational calculation of the risk and the expected costs, they likely wouldn't have anticipated an increase in highway speed limits. Whatever failure rate you assume would likely be tied to whatever typical highway driving speed you expected, and a 10 mph increase might really mess that up. Also, the real world is not like the lab - tires may wear faster in real-life use than in tests.
AcerbicZero 9y ago
This tire might have been rubbish, but it's not even close to being the worst tire of this decade, let alone the worst tire in history.
- mrguyorama 9y ago
  Care to elaborate? The article mentions it had over a ten fold increase in incidents compared to the well-known Firestone debacle. What other tires are dangerous?
King-Aaron 9y ago
The issue with the tires aside - because that is appalling in itself - I have to wonder what safety standards RV's have to be built to? Because to me, they appear to be little more than a truck-style ladder chassis mated to a fibreglass caravan shell (in essence). Any level of accident in one seems like it would result in serious injury. In the US, do passengers in them have to wear seat belts? And do the vehicles undergo crash testing to the same standards as conventional truck cabs?
- RegBarclay 9y ago
  RVs are not crash tested. Seat belt regulations vary by state, but in general, driver and passenger positions are required to wear seat belts. RV construction varies quite a bit from truck chassis to motor coach conversions. There are lots of accident scenarios, but when it comes to crashing with other vehicles, RVs do have mass on their side. Mine is 10 tons. Passenger cars don't scare me. I don't want to have a tire blowout. I don't want to roll it. I don't want to tangle with tractor trailers. These things would go poorly.
  - King-Aaron 9y ago
    > I don't want to roll it. Im surprised they don't have a rigid frame / internal roll bars etc. I suppose there's so much weight in the vehicle already it's just additional mass. Your comment about passenger cars not scaring you made me laugh however... I drive a mx5/miata everywhere.. Literally every other vehicle on the road scares me, and I have a full roll cage :P
ericcumbee 9y ago
Seems like a case where the cover-up is actually worse than the crime. From reading the article I did not see where Goodyear marketed the Tire as being suitable for use on RVs. If that is the case the worst they should be held liable for is failing to re-iterate the fact that they should not be used on RVs.
- tomkarlo 9y ago
  Goodyear was selling them directly to RV manufacturers as the OEM tire for popular models. It's hard to believe they either didn't know they were going to be used on RVs, or did but were upfront about the risks.
londons_explore 9y ago
Do they actually fail when not underinflated, not overloaded, and not driven above the speed limit? 0.2% of these tyres have failed. I can completely believe that far more than 0.2% of tyres are driven overspeed, underinflated or overloaded in their lifetime. I can't really blame a tyre company for making a tyre which fails when used outside it's advertised specifications.
- rtkwe 9y ago
  The issue is without a recall/advisory consumers won't know that their tires are potentially dangerous. When buying a vehicle (or any item really) the customer should be able to assume that the product isn't dangerously underspeced in some way. If the specs were well communicated to the manufacturers of the RVs (and possibly tire shops) then it's not Goodyear's fault that the tires were put on RVs where they were unfit for the purpose. What is their fault though is that when the problem came to light they moved to protect themselves and prevent the problem from coming to light through the terms of their settlements.
- morogop 9y ago
  A few points: * 3484 out of 160,683 tires is about 2.2%, not 0.2% * By June 1998, Goodyear responded by increasing the G159s rating to 75 mph, even though its own data “revealed that that if Goodyear approved an increase in the speed rating of the tire to 75 mph, the tire would generate temperatures well beyond the design capacity of the tire, producing predictable tread separations, with resultant death and injury,” * literally everything in the story is ludicrously damning.
SigmundA 9y ago
In the US at least RV are interesting as far as safety regulations go. Its probably a good peek into what would happen if you removed a bunch of regulation for the normal car industry. No crash testing, no air bags, questionable electrical wiring for a moving vehicle. Flexible propane gas line running into moving slide systems. I have a modern class A which I love, but its built like a 70's automobile, some real head scratching engineering decisions, some of which I have fixed. If you get into RVing especially the larger ones the tire issue is one you worry about and see talked about constantly. The article touched on it some in talking about how Goodyear defended themselves in the suit, and some of it is valid. RV's tend to sit for long periods of time unused, this causes all sorts of issues including the tires. RV tire almost always age out rather than wear out. You should be replacing them at 7 years and they will have plenty of tread when you do. Many RV's are traveling around with 10 year old tires that the owners wont replace because they are very expensive and the tread look fine. There is some debate on if the sitting flat spots them that also contributes to failure issues. They also also typically have sidewall cracking due to long term UV exposure and sitting without flexing. Large RV tires are very sensitive to weight and inflation pressure, much more so than any car I have ever owned. Large vehicles seem to be generally closer to failure limits on all components involved. A under inflated tire seems to be a common cause of blowouts. Again due to sitting for long periods, many will go to take a trip and not bother to check the tire pressure before leaving. Also very few large RV's have TPMS systems, there is a large industry of after market TPMS for RV's that pretty much every recommends you should purchase one of. TPMS should be required by law as I believe they are on cars now. My RV requires at least 82 psi minimum, I run 90 and make sure its maintained. The article mentions the G159's where only rated for 65 mph, a little low, most RV tires including mine are only rated for 70mph. I drive my RV at 65 and below and stay in the rightmost lane except in a very rare passing circumstance. Driving above 65 and especially 70 mph is a menace IMO and I have seen it plenty of times with a large class A passing everyone in the left lane towing a car. There was a video that was going around the RV site not long ago showing a bad blowout of someone doing that [1]. There is a whole aftermarket of parts designed to make RV's safer in a blowout, a popular one is safe-t-plus [2], because if you do have a front blowout like that video RV's are very difficult to control due to the weight shift forward. It is actually recommended to not hit your brake but accelerate slightly to stay in control and prevent the brake dive, then slowly come to a stop. Hard to remember in that situation. RV overloading is pretty common too. Many people don't understand the gross weight ratings and many RV's are built with so many features and heavy materials that there have actually been cases of them being over the weight rating if you fill them with gas and have two people on board. My RV has 2500 lbs of carry capacity with a full fuel tank and 5000 lbs of towing. If I fill the water tank that's 600 lbs off the carry capacity, then people and gear. Its recommend to go on a scale and weigh after loaded up to make sure your within your limits. I tow a 4500 lbs Jeep, again many don't pay attention to tow rating and tow their full size pickup weighing 6000 lbs plus a 1000 lb golf cart in the bed. Bottom line the Goodyear was under specced but RV's are not like cars but many people treat them the same, no training is required to drive one unlike a large semi or bus. They really need to be regulated for crash safety and tpms. More headroom is needed in design such as tire speed rating and chassis weight ratings or perhaps more training required to operate them. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LkLeljt4t0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LkLeljt4t0 2. http://www.safe-t-plus.com/ http://www.safe-t-plus.com/
HankB99 9y ago
"The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration had accumulated reports of 61 deaths and more than 100 serious injuries linked to Firestone 500 blowouts." http://www.rubbernews.com/article/19960812/ISSUE/308129970/the-14-million-firestone-500-radials-still-on-the-road-the-radial-was-prone-to-belt-separation-and-blowouts-and-contributed-to-61-fatal-auto-accidents-according-to-the-national-highway-traffic-safety-administration-500-tragedy-crushes-firestone http://www.rubbernews.com/article/19960812/ISSUE/308129970/t... I might have thought that the Firestone 500 was "The Worst Tire in History."
- slededit 9y ago
  Had this tire been put on cars it would have been much worse. The total carnage was limited by its application in motor homes.

152 points by Huhty 9y ago

> the tires were designed to handle a sustained temperature of 194 degrees Fahrenheit when traveling at highway speeds between 65-75 mph. In excess of 200 degrees, the tire ran the risk of tread separations. Doesn't seem like there was much margin in the design. How was this even allowed to be sold?

wccrawford 9y ago
Because tires don't usually get that hot? https://www.caranddriver.com/columns/a-look-behind-the-tire-hysteria https://www.caranddriver.com/columns/a-look-behind-the-tire-... >How hot does the tire get? Typical tires experience a temperature increase of roughly 50 degrees after running on the highway for a half-hour. If it's a 70-degree day, this suggests a tire temperature of about 120 degrees. So even at 120 degree weather, you'd only expect the tires to reach 170 degrees. That's still far below the 194 that they're rated for.
- briffle 9y ago
  That is for passenger car/ light truck tires. These were much higher load ratings, heavier, and much, much larger. Most are inflated to 75-110 PSI, and each Tire can carry around 3600lbs (at least in the G670 that replaced it)
- cavanasm 9y ago
  Goodyear had test results indicating the tire would get to 225 degrees or higher when operating at 65-75 mph.
- themacks 9y ago
  In 100 degree weather, fairly common in the south, the road surface temperature would be significantly higher, upwards of 150 to 175.
  - ChrisLomont 9y ago
    I cannot find anywhere listing road temperatures nearing 175 F. Do you have a source? Most I find are like this [1], which would allow a max road surface temp at 100F air temp at the equator with the sun directly overhead on a perfectly clear day to reach around 148F. (see equation 17 in the paper). The rest of the literature I have found is similar. I doubt roads in the US south reach 175, and likely not even 150. [1] http://www.ijirae.com/volumes/Vol2/iss8/01.AUAE10083.pdf http://www.ijirae.com/volumes/Vol2/iss8/01.AUAE10083.pdf
    - merpnderp 9y ago
      On hot days I like to take my laser temp gun and shoot roads and other things, and I've never seen anything over 140F.
      - ChrisLomont 9y ago
        Out of curiosity, what is the hottest background temps you think you've checked in? Any around 100 F ambient?
        pbhjpbhj 9y ago
        Not parent: >Dr Howard Robinson, chief executive of the Road Surface Treatments Association, says most roads in the UK that experience a reasonable amount of traffic will start softening at 50C. >[...] >And dark road material can absorb a lot of heat. The typical summer ground temperature is higher than air temperature. Robinson says roads "regularly" reach a temperature of 50C and above. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23315384 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23315384) // 50 deg C is 122F; but this is UK with air temps of ~30 deg C
        ChrisLomont 9y ago
        Yeah, I read that too. 30C is 86 F. The OP above mentioned a 100 degree day, 14 degrees warmer, and the formula and paper I referenced above would put the surface temp of the road would also only rise 14 degrees, to 136 F on a 100 degree day. The OP claimed 150-175 is common on a 100 degree day. No research I can find (except one single author) is anywhere near that amount.
venomsnake 9y ago
Isn't speed limit 55mph? And doesn't this gives some wiggle room for goodyear - after all the tire was operated outside of the conditions.
WalterBright 9y ago
I just can't see driving an RV at 65-75. It's not a sports car.
- fotbr 9y ago
  Take I-70 across Kansas. Or I-80 across Nebraska. If you're not doing 75, you'll be run off the road by traffic (including RVs) going much faster. You don't need sports-car maneuverability on big, fairly light-traffic interstates.
  - WalterBright 9y ago
    Take a look at the tires on a sports car, and the tires on an RV. They're very different. It's isn't just the handling, it's their ability to withstand the centrifugal forces and heat from high speed.
- jhayward 9y ago
  I take it you've never driven in the American west. From San Antonio to El Paso interstate 10 is 550 miles of extremely smooth, well designed divided highway with speed limits of 80 mph for much of the way. There is almost nothing of interest between those two points, esp. if your trip objective is somewhere west. You'd be insane to not run at the maximum safe speed of your vehicle. Many RV trailer tires are only rated to 65 mph, although there are some 80 mph rated ones becoming common because people are so tempted to gain back those extra hours of travel time slowing to 65 involves.
  - cryptonector 9y ago
    Well, you don't want to drive "at the maximum safe speed of your vehicle" all the time. You should want some margin for error. But many many cars sold in the U.S. have maximum safe speeds well in excess of 120mph. As for an RV... driving an RV faster than 70mph seems a bit scary to me, but then, I've never driven one.
    - jhayward 9y ago
cryptonector 9y ago
"Because you shouldn't speed!" Of course, that's silly (but you know there will be moralizers ready to say that, often the sort who wouldn't yield the passing lane to speeders). First, we have highways with higher speed limits anyways (up to 85mph in the U.S.). Second, people speed -- our highways and cars are generally designed to tolerate much higher speeds. I have seen caravans of cars drive up the NJ turnpike at speeds in excess of 130mph.

virgilp 9y ago

But... why? I will never understand the thinking that goes into doing stuff like this, especially within a mega-corp. It's the same as with diesel-emissions cheating: if you're successful with that product, you're basically guaranteed to get caught eventually. And if you start from the assumption that it's not going to be a successful product... why even bother?

BankaiTiger 9y ago
Going ahead with the bad product has higher payoff than not or later on. I imagine that's how they made the decision if the knowledge was widespread.
ivanbakel 9y ago
I'd imagine part of it is the timeframe of "eventually". Why care that the company will be in ruins later, if it makes you rich now and you think you'll be out the door before the apocalypse comes? Of course, there's a simpler answer: because they think it will be profitable. The aggressive settlements described in the article might even have been a part of the original calculations in just how much money could be made.
darkerside 9y ago
> you're basically guaranteed to get caught eventually That seems like an unwarranted assumption rooted in confirmation bias. It seems like everyone gets caught... because everyone we know about gets caught. There could be legions of cases like this that we never find out about.
- virgilp 9y ago
  > unwarranted assumption rooted in confirmation bias I'd say it's rooted in statistics: 1. Take this tire. If you know that there's a high chance it will blow up, then ... the more you sell, the more tires blow up in the wild; the more tires that blow up, the more injured & dead. The more injured & dead - the more likely you are to get caught. The end-to-end equation is "the more tires you sell, the worse your chances to get away with it". 2. Dieselgate: it's different, in that nothing "blows up". But still, the more cars you put on the road, the higher the chance one owner/mechanic will notice it. Maybe your "chance of detection" doesn't increase dramatically with the success of the product (though it definitely does increase), but the impact of it being detected increases linearly with the number of cars sold! This is still a very bad equation, since VW had zero deniability - once the cheat was detected in one car, it could be easily reproduced in all. It just doesn't seem to work out, from a risk-benefit perspective. Maybe only if you're looking very short term?

nimos 9y ago

Seems kind of crazy things can be sealed like this in cases regarding public safety.

sjsbsh 9y ago
The sealing is annoying, cause the courts are doing that. But dragging discovery or not doing it honestly... that’s what Uber is doing right now (judge is peeved about it too)
kevingadd 9y ago
There was a recent incident where an assault victim was forbidden from speaking at her attacker's sentencing (criminal!) hearing because of a non-disclosure agreement attached to a past civil settlement. The US's approach to secrecy is... a mess.

reificator 9y ago

Depending on how many people used these tires, the "Worst Tire in History" only claiming nine (reported) lives is actually pretty good. Auto collisions being what they are I'm curious as to the actual numbers behind different tires.

oh_sigh 9y ago
That is 9 deaths directly attributable to the tires. It's not like there were just 9 fatalities in car accidents where the cars just coincidentally had that tire.
No1 9y ago
From the article > Those numbers are almost certainly higher in reality: in court, Goodyear admitted it has received at least 98 injury and/or death claims over the tire.
cavanasm 9y ago
The tire was not in wide circulation. There were only around 160,000 ever made, and most of those were presumably sold for delivery vehicles, which is what they were supposedly designed for. The problem is that some number of those 160,000 were put on RVs, where they're seemingly a time bomb.

ams6110 9y ago

Goodyear certainly seems to have a big piece of the responsibility here. But I don't hold the RV manufacturers blameless -- they were the ones selecting and buying a low-speed commercial delivery vehicle tire for a passenger application. Also I'm inclined to believe that many owners didn't inflate them properly. A high load range tire will have a much higher pressure than passenger car owners are accustomed to. Most people just inflate their tires to about 30PSI and that's generally fine for a passenger car. Most consumer tire pumps or inflators would probably have difficulty getting to the proper pressure which can be twice that more than a normal passenger car tire.

Johnny555 9y ago
Did the RV manufacturers know it was a low-speed commercial delivery tire? Goodyear apparently marketed it to the RV industry: In a lawsuit filed later against Goodyear, the Woods family accused the company of selling a defective tire that had been marketed to recreational motorhome makers, even though it knew the G159 couldn’t handle highway speeds when equipped on an RV. What's not clear is whether or not the speed rating was known.
mmariani 9y ago
Any decent track pump can easily get to an order of magnitude higher. I routinely pump bike tires to 125 psi. Back to the point, tires are the most important piece of kit in regards to driving/riding handling quality, and usually one of the most underestimated. I wish people in general paid more attention to the state and quality of their tires.
- totalZero 9y ago
  The problem isn't solely the level of pressure, it's also the time it takes to reach that pressure. If you are running a little electric pump to get a truck tire to 60 PSI, it's going to take a long time even if the pump doesn't overheat and burn out.
  - mmariani 9y ago
    You just gave me a great idea. My car has a smat electric pump that I don’t trust. I’m going to store in the car a compact track pump in case I have to use the patch kit. Thanks for the insight on the lateral thinking.

S_A_P 9y ago

Im still trying to grapple with this one. Its not like Goodyear doesn't have other tires. If they know these things will cause accidents(or over the years learned this was happening) why did they not alter the design? I know it must come down to a cost vs benefit analysis but I cant see how they would come out ahead with a "deadly" tire.

sjsbsh 9y ago
1) they don’t have to re-tool getting more profit from the production line. 2) the tyre was probably just barely not good enough for RV use - but a lot cheaper to manufacture. Mix obvious profit with an FU attitude in management, and it goes to market.
tomkarlo 9y ago
Even if they made an entirely rational calculation of the risk and the expected costs, they likely wouldn't have anticipated an increase in highway speed limits. Whatever failure rate you assume would likely be tied to whatever typical highway driving speed you expected, and a 10 mph increase might really mess that up. Also, the real world is not like the lab - tires may wear faster in real-life use than in tests.

AcerbicZero 9y ago

This tire might have been rubbish, but it's not even close to being the worst tire of this decade, let alone the worst tire in history.

mrguyorama 9y ago
Care to elaborate? The article mentions it had over a ten fold increase in incidents compared to the well-known Firestone debacle. What other tires are dangerous?

King-Aaron 9y ago

The issue with the tires aside - because that is appalling in itself - I have to wonder what safety standards RV's have to be built to? Because to me, they appear to be little more than a truck-style ladder chassis mated to a fibreglass caravan shell (in essence). Any level of accident in one seems like it would result in serious injury. In the US, do passengers in them have to wear seat belts? And do the vehicles undergo crash testing to the same standards as conventional truck cabs?

RegBarclay 9y ago
RVs are not crash tested. Seat belt regulations vary by state, but in general, driver and passenger positions are required to wear seat belts. RV construction varies quite a bit from truck chassis to motor coach conversions. There are lots of accident scenarios, but when it comes to crashing with other vehicles, RVs do have mass on their side. Mine is 10 tons. Passenger cars don't scare me. I don't want to have a tire blowout. I don't want to roll it. I don't want to tangle with tractor trailers. These things would go poorly.
- King-Aaron 9y ago
  > I don't want to roll it. Im surprised they don't have a rigid frame / internal roll bars etc. I suppose there's so much weight in the vehicle already it's just additional mass. Your comment about passenger cars not scaring you made me laugh however... I drive a mx5/miata everywhere.. Literally every other vehicle on the road scares me, and I have a full roll cage :P

ericcumbee 9y ago

Seems like a case where the cover-up is actually worse than the crime. From reading the article I did not see where Goodyear marketed the Tire as being suitable for use on RVs. If that is the case the worst they should be held liable for is failing to re-iterate the fact that they should not be used on RVs.

tomkarlo 9y ago
Goodyear was selling them directly to RV manufacturers as the OEM tire for popular models. It's hard to believe they either didn't know they were going to be used on RVs, or did but were upfront about the risks.

londons_explore 9y ago

Do they actually fail when not underinflated, not overloaded, and not driven above the speed limit? 0.2% of these tyres have failed. I can completely believe that far more than 0.2% of tyres are driven overspeed, underinflated or overloaded in their lifetime. I can't really blame a tyre company for making a tyre which fails when used outside it's advertised specifications.

rtkwe 9y ago
The issue is without a recall/advisory consumers won't know that their tires are potentially dangerous. When buying a vehicle (or any item really) the customer should be able to assume that the product isn't dangerously underspeced in some way. If the specs were well communicated to the manufacturers of the RVs (and possibly tire shops) then it's not Goodyear's fault that the tires were put on RVs where they were unfit for the purpose. What is their fault though is that when the problem came to light they moved to protect themselves and prevent the problem from coming to light through the terms of their settlements.
morogop 9y ago
A few points: * 3484 out of 160,683 tires is about 2.2%, not 0.2% * By June 1998, Goodyear responded by increasing the G159s rating to 75 mph, even though its own data “revealed that that if Goodyear approved an increase in the speed rating of the tire to 75 mph, the tire would generate temperatures well beyond the design capacity of the tire, producing predictable tread separations, with resultant death and injury,” * literally everything in the story is ludicrously damning.

SigmundA 9y ago

In the US at least RV are interesting as far as safety regulations go. Its probably a good peek into what would happen if you removed a bunch of regulation for the normal car industry. No crash testing, no air bags, questionable electrical wiring for a moving vehicle. Flexible propane gas line running into moving slide systems. I have a modern class A which I love, but its built like a 70's automobile, some real head scratching engineering decisions, some of which I have fixed. If you get into RVing especially the larger ones the tire issue is one you worry about and see talked about constantly. The article touched on it some in talking about how Goodyear defended themselves in the suit, and some of it is valid. RV's tend to sit for long periods of time unused, this causes all sorts of issues including the tires. RV tire almost always age out rather than wear out. You should be replacing them at 7 years and they will have plenty of tread when you do. Many RV's are traveling around with 10 year old tires that the owners wont replace because they are very expensive and the tread look fine. There is some debate on if the sitting flat spots them that also contributes to failure issues. They also also typically have sidewall cracking due to long term UV exposure and sitting without flexing. Large RV tires are very sensitive to weight and inflation pressure, much more so than any car I have ever owned. Large vehicles seem to be generally closer to failure limits on all components involved. A under inflated tire seems to be a common cause of blowouts. Again due to sitting for long periods, many will go to take a trip and not bother to check the tire pressure before leaving. Also very few large RV's have TPMS systems, there is a large industry of after market TPMS for RV's that pretty much every recommends you should purchase one of. TPMS should be required by law as I believe they are on cars now. My RV requires at least 82 psi minimum, I run 90 and make sure its maintained. The article mentions the G159's where only rated for 65 mph, a little low, most RV tires including mine are only rated for 70mph. I drive my RV at 65 and below and stay in the rightmost lane except in a very rare passing circumstance. Driving above 65 and especially 70 mph is a menace IMO and I have seen it plenty of times with a large class A passing everyone in the left lane towing a car. There was a video that was going around the RV site not long ago showing a bad blowout of someone doing that [1]. There is a whole aftermarket of parts designed to make RV's safer in a blowout, a popular one is safe-t-plus [2], because if you do have a front blowout like that video RV's are very difficult to control due to the weight shift forward. It is actually recommended to not hit your brake but accelerate slightly to stay in control and prevent the brake dive, then slowly come to a stop. Hard to remember in that situation. RV overloading is pretty common too. Many people don't understand the gross weight ratings and many RV's are built with so many features and heavy materials that there have actually been cases of them being over the weight rating if you fill them with gas and have two people on board. My RV has 2500 lbs of carry capacity with a full fuel tank and 5000 lbs of towing. If I fill the water tank that's 600 lbs off the carry capacity, then people and gear. Its recommend to go on a scale and weigh after loaded up to make sure your within your limits. I tow a 4500 lbs Jeep, again many don't pay attention to tow rating and tow their full size pickup weighing 6000 lbs plus a 1000 lb golf cart in the bed. Bottom line the Goodyear was under specced but RV's are not like cars but many people treat them the same, no training is required to drive one unlike a large semi or bus. They really need to be regulated for crash safety and tpms. More headroom is needed in design such as tire speed rating and chassis weight ratings or perhaps more training required to operate them. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LkLeljt4t0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LkLeljt4t0 2. http://www.safe-t-plus.com/ http://www.safe-t-plus.com/

HankB99 9y ago

"The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration had accumulated reports of 61 deaths and more than 100 serious injuries linked to Firestone 500 blowouts." http://www.rubbernews.com/article/19960812/ISSUE/308129970/the-14-million-firestone-500-radials-still-on-the-road-the-radial-was-prone-to-belt-separation-and-blowouts-and-contributed-to-61-fatal-auto-accidents-according-to-the-national-highway-traffic-safety-administration-500-tragedy-crushes-firestone http://www.rubbernews.com/article/19960812/ISSUE/308129970/t... I might have thought that the Firestone 500 was "The Worst Tire in History."

slededit 9y ago
Had this tire been put on cars it would have been much worse. The total carnage was limited by its application in motor homes.