New Firehawk Wideovals
03-30-2010, 04:53 PM
#41
Race Director
If you have the road hazard then who cares about repairabilty? I'd rather have a new tire than a repaired one. If it says "don't repair" buy the road hazard.
03-30-2010, 04:53 PM
#42
Melting Slicks
Also to put warnings on a tire as well as in writing is hardly an indictment. Chances are much better people will look at the tire versus a warranty piece of paper which they have probably lost. I see no reason to believe that choosing to put the warning on the tire as well is somehow an extra bad thing.
From Michelin's site and warranty document:
http://www.michelinman.com/media/en-...d-warranty.pdf
--------------
If any Michelin® tire sustains a puncture, have the tire demounted and thoroughly inspected by any Michelin® tire retailer for possible damage that may have occurred. A tread area puncture in any Michelin® passenger or light truck tire can be repaired provided that the puncture hole is not more than 1/4” in diameter, not more than one radial cable per casing ply is damaged, and the tire has not been damaged further by the puncturing object or by running underinflated. Tire punctures consistent with these guidelines can be repaired by following the Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA) recommended repair procedures.
If the tire pressure is at or below 18 PSI, proceed to the nearest
Authorized PAX System Retailer for PAX tires or a participating
Michelin® tire retailer for ZP tires (or a representative of your
vehicle manufacturer if advised to do so in your vehicle owner’s
manual) and have the tire demounted and thoroughly inspected
for possible internal damage.
-------------
Clearly damage can happen to RF tires running in a low inflation state. FS sets that at 15psi and Michelin at 18psi. The point here isn't to compare psi ratings which I don't think say anything in this case, but to point out that the same problem can occur for both tires in a low inflation state.
It continues
03-30-2010, 04:57 PM
#44
Melting Slicks
Member Since: Jun 2007
Location: Castro Valley California
Posts: 2,655
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
I mean my comments were only to point out the above info. It seems some think I'm saying something else alltogether? Fyi, I do not own the Michelins just yet. But I will purchase when my OEMs wear out (in the next year or so).
Last edited by CA C6 Fan; 03-30-2010 at 05:01 PM.
03-30-2010, 05:24 PM
#45
Burning Brakes
Member Since: Apr 2009
Location: North Shore MA
Posts: 839
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the repair argument really needs to just die which i said numerous posts ago. It just won't go away.
Just to clarify I have had that quote for 2 weeks now and i had a quote from tire rack a month ago or longer. I ordered my wheels at the beginning of February.so its not like i just hopped on the band wagon. I've just been waiting to purchase them till i get my wheels and fit them to make sure there are no problems.
Last edited by MCSSLT1; 03-30-2010 at 05:30 PM.
03-30-2010, 05:27 PM
#46
Melting Slicks
Member Since: Jun 2007
Location: Castro Valley California
Posts: 2,655
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Once again I added bold to point out the specific area of interest. I have no issue with the exclusions below which I think are perfectly reasonable. However, to imply that Michelin some how has no rules surrounding repair of their tires is misleading.
Also to put warnings on a tire as well as in writing is hardly an indictment. Chances are much better people will look at the tire versus a warranty piece of paper which they have probably lost. I see no reason to believe that choosing to put the warning on the tire as well is somehow an extra bad thing.
From Michelin's site and warranty document:
http://www.michelinman.com/media/en-...d-warranty.pdf
--------------
If any Michelin® tire sustains a puncture, have the tire demounted and thoroughly inspected by any Michelin® tire retailer for possible damage that may have occurred. A tread area puncture in any Michelin® passenger or light truck tire can be repaired provided that the puncture hole is not more than 1/4” in diameter, not more than one radial cable per casing ply is damaged, and the tire has not been damaged further by the puncturing object or by running underinflated. Tire punctures consistent with these guidelines can be repaired by following the Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA) recommended repair procedures.
If the tire pressure is at or below 18 PSI, proceed to the nearest
Authorized PAX System Retailer for PAX tires or a participating
Michelin® tire retailer for ZP tires (or a representative of your
vehicle manufacturer if advised to do so in your vehicle owner’s
manual) and have the tire demounted and thoroughly inspected
for possible internal damage.
-------------
Clearly damage can happen to RF tires running in a low inflation state. FS sets that at 15psi and Michelin at 18psi. The point here isn't to compare psi ratings which I don't think say anything in this case, but to point out that the same problem can occur for both tires in a low inflation state.
Also to put warnings on a tire as well as in writing is hardly an indictment. Chances are much better people will look at the tire versus a warranty piece of paper which they have probably lost. I see no reason to believe that choosing to put the warning on the tire as well is somehow an extra bad thing.
From Michelin's site and warranty document:
http://www.michelinman.com/media/en-...d-warranty.pdf
--------------
If any Michelin® tire sustains a puncture, have the tire demounted and thoroughly inspected by any Michelin® tire retailer for possible damage that may have occurred. A tread area puncture in any Michelin® passenger or light truck tire can be repaired provided that the puncture hole is not more than 1/4” in diameter, not more than one radial cable per casing ply is damaged, and the tire has not been damaged further by the puncturing object or by running underinflated. Tire punctures consistent with these guidelines can be repaired by following the Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA) recommended repair procedures.
If the tire pressure is at or below 18 PSI, proceed to the nearest
Authorized PAX System Retailer for PAX tires or a participating
Michelin® tire retailer for ZP tires (or a representative of your
vehicle manufacturer if advised to do so in your vehicle owner’s
manual) and have the tire demounted and thoroughly inspected
for possible internal damage.
-------------
Clearly damage can happen to RF tires running in a low inflation state. FS sets that at 15psi and Michelin at 18psi. The point here isn't to compare psi ratings which I don't think say anything in this case, but to point out that the same problem can occur for both tires in a low inflation state.
Personally, folks have to decide whether or not that FS RF disclaimer is ambiguous enough for them to make another decision and purchase a different RF tire. It is for me. OK?
03-30-2010, 05:36 PM
#47
Melting Slicks
Member Since: Jun 2007
Location: Castro Valley California
Posts: 2,655
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
03-30-2010, 05:44 PM
#48
Advanced
Member Since: Nov 2009
Location: Westminster MD
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back on topic...Congrats to the OP on his new tires. I am hoping to get one more summer out of my original GY and then will be putting the FS on my 2007.
By the way I do have 1 question though. I have never seen the FS up close but I have heard a rumor that it says "do not repair" on the sidewall. Can anyone confirm this for me?
By the way I do have 1 question though. I have never seen the FS up close but I have heard a rumor that it says "do not repair" on the sidewall. Can anyone confirm this for me?
03-30-2010, 05:50 PM
#50
Melting Slicks
I say again, the Michelins do not have a "do not repair" statement on any of their ZP tires. FS RFs do. While all this other stuff is certainly comparable (I thought it might be), when the rubber meets the road (sorry), the Michelins do not have that disclaimer on the tire. Pretty black/white for me.
Personally, folks have to decide whether or not that FS RF disclaimer is ambiguous enough for them to make another decision and purchase a different RF tire. It is for me. OK?
Personally, folks have to decide whether or not that FS RF disclaimer is ambiguous enough for them to make another decision and purchase a different RF tire. It is for me. OK?
There is no point in me continuing this discussion. People now can very easily read both warranty statements and draw their own informed conclusion regardless of anyone's spin. The facts are what they are.
03-30-2010, 05:58 PM
#51
Melting Slicks
Member Since: Jun 2007
Location: Castro Valley California
Posts: 2,655
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
I am sorry to say that you are coming off as a bit of an idealogue. No matter what FS say you have your view and aren't going to come off of it. I have presented facts by pasting directly from both companies warranty statements and supplying the links. There is not a substantive difference between the conditions under which either tire can be repaired. You said there are no disclaimers related to Michelin tires which I have shown to be incorrect via their own warranty statements. You have stated that FS tires cannot be repaired and again I have shown that statement to be incorrect via FS's own warranty statement. You are attempting to parse words in order to support your thesis but that just doesn't work when the actual facts are printed.
There is no point in me continuing this discussion. People now can very easily read both warranty statements and draw their own informed conclusion regardless of anyone's spin. The facts are what they are.
There is no point in me continuing this discussion. People now can very easily read both warranty statements and draw their own informed conclusion regardless of anyone's spin. The facts are what they are.
OK, so you will understand.
FACT - FS RFs have a "do not repair" disclaimer on their tire.
FACT - Michelin does NOT.
03-30-2010, 07:14 PM
#52
Melting Slicks
I know I said I was done, but since I have another actual fact to show, I thought it worth just once more so others can be informed.
The very definition of an idealogue is take things out of context in order to support your own thesis. You can take select words out of any document or speech and if presented in an edited way, people can be made to believe almost anything. The only way to combat that is by presenting it unedited and let others decide.
You can dismiss the websites because they don't say what you want them to, but the links I provided were to the actual warranty documents just as you'd receive them at the time of purchase. Perhaps FS or Michelin would sneak it my house at night and switch them out, but barring that, those statements are just as much in writing as they are on the tire.
Rather than taking select wording while conveniently ignoring everything else, below is the text and a picture from the tire. It was VERY hard for me to get a good picture given the black/black, but anyone can go look at the real thing if they want. Here is what it says regarding the do not repair statement sans the editing.
"Tire failure due to damage caused during run flat operation. Do not repair tire. Do not reinflate tire after run flat operation."
The very definition of an idealogue is take things out of context in order to support your own thesis. You can take select words out of any document or speech and if presented in an edited way, people can be made to believe almost anything. The only way to combat that is by presenting it unedited and let others decide.
You can dismiss the websites because they don't say what you want them to, but the links I provided were to the actual warranty documents just as you'd receive them at the time of purchase. Perhaps FS or Michelin would sneak it my house at night and switch them out, but barring that, those statements are just as much in writing as they are on the tire.
Rather than taking select wording while conveniently ignoring everything else, below is the text and a picture from the tire. It was VERY hard for me to get a good picture given the black/black, but anyone can go look at the real thing if they want. Here is what it says regarding the do not repair statement sans the editing.
"Tire failure due to damage caused during run flat operation. Do not repair tire. Do not reinflate tire after run flat operation."
03-30-2010, 07:19 PM
#53
Racer
Member Since: Mar 2009
Location: naples fl
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My original tires lasted 33,660 miles. The rear were in better shape that the fronts but it was time.
I decided on the Firehawk Wideovals. I guess the old tires were more worn than I thought because the new ones sure seem smooth. I have not had a chance to get on the interstate yet or to try out the handling but I am hoping that they are as good as reported.
They were $1,211.84 so they were much less than OEM replacements.
I decided on the Firehawk Wideovals. I guess the old tires were more worn than I thought because the new ones sure seem smooth. I have not had a chance to get on the interstate yet or to try out the handling but I am hoping that they are as good as reported.
They were $1,211.84 so they were much less than OEM replacements.
$700 and change for all 4. WOW!!!
03-30-2010, 07:37 PM
#54
Melting Slicks
Member Since: Jun 2007
Location: Castro Valley California
Posts: 2,655
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
I know I said I was done, but since I have another actual fact to show, I thought it worth just once more so others can be informed.
The very definition of an idealogue is take things out of context in order to support your own thesis. You can take select words out of any document or speech and if presented in an edited way, people can be made to believe almost anything. The only way to combat that is by presenting it unedited and let others decide.
You can dismiss the websites because they don't say what you want them to, but the links I provided were to the actual warranty documents just as you'd receive them at the time of purchase. Perhaps FS or Michelin would sneak it my house at night and switch them out, but barring that, those statements are just as much in writing as they are on the tire.
Rather than taking select wording while conveniently ignoring everything else, below is the text and a picture from the tire. It was VERY hard for me to get a good picture given the black/black, but anyone can go look at the real thing if they want. Here is what it says regarding the do not repair statement sans the editing.
"Tire failure due to damage caused during run flat operation. Do not repair tire. Do not reinflate tire after run flat operation."
The very definition of an idealogue is take things out of context in order to support your own thesis. You can take select words out of any document or speech and if presented in an edited way, people can be made to believe almost anything. The only way to combat that is by presenting it unedited and let others decide.
You can dismiss the websites because they don't say what you want them to, but the links I provided were to the actual warranty documents just as you'd receive them at the time of purchase. Perhaps FS or Michelin would sneak it my house at night and switch them out, but barring that, those statements are just as much in writing as they are on the tire.
Rather than taking select wording while conveniently ignoring everything else, below is the text and a picture from the tire. It was VERY hard for me to get a good picture given the black/black, but anyone can go look at the real thing if they want. Here is what it says regarding the do not repair statement sans the editing.
"Tire failure due to damage caused during run flat operation. Do not repair tire. Do not reinflate tire after run flat operation."
But I also have to say, even though it states the obvious; I am still leery about purchasing the FS RFs nevertheless. I don't like how they responded (or non-responded) to all those Explorer owners that had issues with them (and Ford, to be fair). And even though this do not repair statement gets them off the hook (for being misleading); I don't trust them enough (from what happened during the Explorer scenario) to purchase their tires (in any format).
I am still going to purchase (when ready) the Michelin A/S ZPs. Primarily based on their excellent customer service record and performance over all these years, as compared to FS. Maybe, at some point, I will get over that. But I am not there at present.
03-30-2010, 07:45 PM
#55
Melting Slicks
Sure enough. I went back to the much clearer pic in the thread headed "Cheapest price on C6 RFs", with a much clearer pic on post #41 and this clarification seems to pass muster. It was that thread, where I based my opinion on. So you are right. You have to put the whole sentence in context. I can see this, now.
But I also have to say, even though it states the obvious; I am still leery about purchasing the FS RFs nevertheless. I don't like how they responded (or non-responded) to all those Explorer owners that had issues with them (and Ford, to be fair). And even though this do not repair statement gets them off the hook (for being misleading); I don't trust them enough (from what happened during the Explorer scenario) to purchase their tires (in any format).
I am still going to purchase (when ready) the Michelin A/S ZPs. Primarily based on their excellent customer service record and performance over all these years, as compared to FS. Maybe, at some point, I will get over that. But I am not there at present.
But I also have to say, even though it states the obvious; I am still leery about purchasing the FS RFs nevertheless. I don't like how they responded (or non-responded) to all those Explorer owners that had issues with them (and Ford, to be fair). And even though this do not repair statement gets them off the hook (for being misleading); I don't trust them enough (from what happened during the Explorer scenario) to purchase their tires (in any format).
I am still going to purchase (when ready) the Michelin A/S ZPs. Primarily based on their excellent customer service record and performance over all these years, as compared to FS. Maybe, at some point, I will get over that. But I am not there at present.
Kudos to you. I admit that I did not expect such a response. The issues as you state them now are perfectly rational and you are certainly well within your rights to be leery based on past fiascoes at FS. Good luck with your future purchase.
03-30-2010, 11:15 PM
#56
Drifting
Member Since: Feb 2010
Location: Bonsall CA
Posts: 1,266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oy vey
Non run flat much quiet, no hear me come.
Firestone...firewater. Me remember.
03-31-2010, 11:34 AM
#57
Melting Slicks
Member Since: Jun 2007
Location: Castro Valley California
Posts: 2,655
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
When I saw (between your fuzzy pic and the clear one) what the whole sentence said, it was obvious the context was incorrect. So my retraction was necessary, especially considering all the facts.
Kudos to you for not taking any of this personally. It's nice to see and experience posters not internalizing any of the discussions on this forum. We're all here to have fun and maybe learn something. And I did.
03-31-2010, 01:05 PM
#58
Drifting
03-31-2010, 01:53 PM
#59
Melting Slicks
Thread Starter
Back on topic...Congrats to the OP on his new tires. I am hoping to get one more summer out of my original GY and then will be putting the FS on my 2007.
By the way I do have 1 question though. I have never seen the FS up close but I have heard a rumor that it says "do not repair" on the sidewall. Can anyone confirm this for me?
By the way I do have 1 question though. I have never seen the FS up close but I have heard a rumor that it says "do not repair" on the sidewall. Can anyone confirm this for me?
Ok first, I don't care. If I were purchacing the Pilot Sports I would not get the A/S, I'd want the ultra performance (or whatever they are called) and they are way more expensive than the FS. I am happy to replace the tire if it is damaged and I'd do that even if it could be repaired.
Second, I am not a lawyer but I am a law student and I am past contracts, manufacture's liability and I can tell you I would take on the tire company in certain cases even with teh disclaimer...
The disclaimer says not to repair if it has been operated in a runflat mode. By definition it would not be in runflat mode unless it was punctured and had less pressure than the minimum required pressure. I have not looked on my C6 but on my C5 the low pressure warning came on at <25 psi. So, assume that the C6 is the same. If that is the case, if I ran over a nail and it punctured the tire I could have it repaired if the pressure never went below 25 psi because it was never operated in the "runflat mode."
Again, I don't care. I want RFT protection and I don't want to pay $1,600 or more to get it. The comfort of these tires is worth the risk. These things are amazingly quiet and comfortable. I had no expectations that they would be this much more quiet and smooth.
In the end the only thing that matters is that the buyer is satisfied with the purchase. So far I am very pleased. I'll see how long they last.
Last edited by bonnell; 03-31-2010 at 01:56 PM.
03-31-2010, 02:16 PM
#60
Melting Slicks
Member Since: Jun 2007
Location: Castro Valley California
Posts: 2,655
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
I just walked out to my car and looked at the tires. There is a section that states "Danger of Injury" and lists several lines of circumstances. The third line states do not repair or reinflate if operated in the runflat mode.
Ok first, I don't care. If I were purchacing the Pilot Sports I would not get the A/S, I'd want the ultra performance (or whatever they are called) and they are way more expensive than the FS. I am happy to replace the tire if it is damaged and I'd do that even if it could be repaired.
Second, I am not a lawyer but I am a law student and I am past contracts, manufacture's liability and I can tell you I would take on the tire company in certain cases even with teh disclaimer...
The disclaimer says not to repair if it has been operated in a runflat mode. By definition it would not be in runflat mode unless it was punctured and had less pressure than the minimum required pressure. I have not looked on my C6 but on my C5 the low pressure warning came on at <25 psi. So, assume that the C6 is the same. If that is the case, if I ran over a nail and it punctured the tire I could have it repaired if the pressure never went below 25 psi because it was never operated in the "runflat mode."
Again, I don't care. I want RFT protection and I don't want to pay $1,600 or more to get it. The comfort of these tires is worth the risk. These things are amazingly quiet and comfortable. I had no expectations that they would be this much more quiet and smooth.
In the end the only thing that matters is that the buyer is satisfied with the purchase. So far I am very pleased. I'll see how long they last.
Ok first, I don't care. If I were purchacing the Pilot Sports I would not get the A/S, I'd want the ultra performance (or whatever they are called) and they are way more expensive than the FS. I am happy to replace the tire if it is damaged and I'd do that even if it could be repaired.
Second, I am not a lawyer but I am a law student and I am past contracts, manufacture's liability and I can tell you I would take on the tire company in certain cases even with teh disclaimer...
The disclaimer says not to repair if it has been operated in a runflat mode. By definition it would not be in runflat mode unless it was punctured and had less pressure than the minimum required pressure. I have not looked on my C6 but on my C5 the low pressure warning came on at <25 psi. So, assume that the C6 is the same. If that is the case, if I ran over a nail and it punctured the tire I could have it repaired if the pressure never went below 25 psi because it was never operated in the "runflat mode."
Again, I don't care. I want RFT protection and I don't want to pay $1,600 or more to get it. The comfort of these tires is worth the risk. These things are amazingly quiet and comfortable. I had no expectations that they would be this much more quiet and smooth.
In the end the only thing that matters is that the buyer is satisfied with the purchase. So far I am very pleased. I'll see how long they last.
in raising this again. Please read the last few comments above yours. It my be elucidating to you?
The Michelin A/S ZPs are speed rated the same as the FS RFs. So what exactly are you talking about when you say "you want ultra-performance"? Unless you are auto-Xing or racing (seriously), these Michelins should be fine for normal/even spirited driving. They are also priced just a little bit more than the FS RFs (about $45 per tire). Peace of mind insurance for me (see below).
For me, the remaining issue (and the reason I will not purchase FS tires, in any iteration); is what they did during the whole Explorer scenario. Lots of dead customers, lots of miscommunications and even more finger pointing. Michelin has never had this happen.
I prefer to give my money to a company with a superlative (almost flawless) reputation for quality, performance and customer service. But, like I stated earlier; to each his/her own.
