Tread Separation on Michelin LTX225/75R16(E) M+S2

[Andrew T]

Hi Sorry I am so long replying to your questions.

I ride in Airstreams regularly to assess the difference that tire or suspension changes make. With the 225/16 tire the difference in the vibration level inside the unit between 80 and 55 PSI is dramatic. On units where they have enough load capacity the 15" Michelin is that much smoother again.

We set tire pressures on hundreds of tires every year using the load inflation tables. We go 5 PSI over the calculated pressure to allow for uneven loading.

Other than the tire in this thread I have never seen a defective Michelin on a trailer. Some of our commercial clients get 100,000 miles out of a set. So there is no shortening of life on a Michelin due to belt separation etc. Most will age out long before they wear out.

We have been running Michelin tires on Airstreams since 1971. There are likely other tires that are just as good but when you have that kind of a track record it is hard to justifying experimenting.

Now if the tires did have less life due to lower pressure I would still give up some life of $150.00 tires instead of shaking up my $100,000 Airstream.

I hope this helps.

Andy

Originally Posted by Tireman9

While it is true that you can sense harsh ride Have you collected any meaningful data ph how much difference there is for different inflations?

Have you confirmed that 55 is sufficient to carry the actual load on the heaviest loaded tire?

Are you really willing to give up 1 or 2 years tire life due to more likely early failure due to belt separation because of higher Interply Shear?

[CapriRacer]

Originally Posted by Cristobal

Not a Michelin, but I did this Friday.

Yes, but what is it? Size, make and model, age? Where did it happen?

[excellaf350]

I'm not as big of a Michelin fan anymore as many on this board are. I used them on my wife's Yukon and only got 50,000 miles out of a 75,000 mile tire. They were cracked and in poor shape in only about 4 years.

I bought BFG Rugged Terrains for my F350. They are 2 weeks shy of 5 years old but no cracking and only 20,000 miles on them. Had a belt slip in one while camping so I put the spare on. Didn't make it home and had a complete tire failure on another one. Blew out at 65 mph with trailer in tow.

I filed a claim with Michelin turns out they were recalled but not the 16" versions because they didn't sell that many. So the gambled on the failures. Michelin agreed to give me 4 new tires free if I dropped the claim.

I put Coopers back on the truck and took the 4 michelins for the trailer. Upgraded to 16's and used the MS/2.

[Mollysdad]

Originally Posted by excellaf350

I'm not as big of a Michelin fan anymore as many on this board are.

Okay, but just because Michelin bought BF Goodrich's name doesn't mean it's an equivalent tire. After all, Thor makes Airstream and Dutchman, but I wouldn't consider them interchangeable.

[Ray Eklund]

Toyota Tundra's came with B. F. Goodrich tires... the Marathon Goodyear version of a truck tire. As in post #143 had issues.

Boondocking with B. F. Goodrich R/T tires were a great match with the Goodyear Marathons on our 2006 Airstream. Poor. The only time we had issues with either of these tires were when we were... using them. The Tundra's spare... a Michelin automobile street tire.

Currently I am running 12 Michelin tires and three spares. If my spares rot out before I have a tire failure... it was well worth the cost. The B. F. Goodrich and the Marathon 14" trailer tire should have a special dump set aside for them.

Mollysdad is correct. The thought is a company sells their less expensive brands, from the reputation of their other, more expensive brand.

Much like Coca Cola and the 'New' Coca Cola and Tab of the past.

Often price indirectly indicates quality and performance. I said "often". For some tires... the advertising is the largest expense in their manufacturing and sales.

[excellaf350]

Originally Posted by Mollysdad

Okay, but just because Michelin bought BF Goodrich's name doesn't mean it's an equivalent tire. After all, Thor makes Airstream and Dutchman, but I wouldn't consider them interchangeable.

I will respectfully disagree with you. BF Goodrich was one of the original radial tire mfg in the USA. They went out of business in the late 80's and stopped selling tires all together. Michelin purchased the brand name. All BFGoodrich tires made after that were (and still are) produced 100% by Michelin. The only thing that carried over was the name.

I'm not saying Michelins are bad tires. I think they are still high quality. But personally I'm not willing to rank them as #1 on the brand chart for quality anymore.

[Mollysdad]

Originally Posted by Ray Eklund

Toyota Tundra's came with B. F. Goodrich tires...

My Tundra came with Bridgestone. Now, I'm no fan of Firestone/Bridgestone after purchasing 4 tires years ago and having all four delaminate within a month, but so far these LT tires have been okay.
My point in differentiating Michelin from BF Goodrich is that just because it's one company doesn't mean they roll off the same assembly line. Michelin also owns Uniroyal, and several brands I never heard of. (Kleber, Tigar, Riken, Kormoran)

[excellaf350]

There were lots of cars and trucks that came with BFG. In general I don't think they are bad tires either. They were always cheaper than Michelins mainly because they had less warranty and marketing etc.

I was very disappointed to find out that my particular tire had design issues and defects causing blow outs. Not that they had these problems in general but that Michelin decided not to recall all of them to save a buck. If they issued the recall for all they have to replace them all. It was cheaper to not recall the lesser sold sizes and gamble on the payouts for damage claims. And that's not something any tire mfg should do. You have a defective product out there and you know it? I would have replaced mine a while ago and saved the damage to my truck.

In my book, Michelin dropped a few ranks for that.

Btw. I have Bridgestone on my Sequoia. They are fine for grip and ride quality. But I can already tell they will be shot by 35,000. Same thing happened with my old Yukon. Had Bridgestones. They were bald at 40k.

You sacrifice mileage for grip. Harder tires last longer but don't grip and well. Softer tires grip and handle great. But won't last. Finding that middle ground that fits your needs is hard to do. Just hope you don't have a blowout in the middle.

Michelin offed me free tires so I took the MS/2. Bought 2 more for a total of 6 for my 34. The ms/2 seems to hold up well. Probably the best tires they make for that size. I'll run em see what happens.

[Tireman9]

So do you run 80 pai all the time or just when towing? Have you installed a TPMS so you can monitor tire inflation?
Did you confirm the inflation on the spare before mounting it?
How old was the spare?

[Monza]

Another riveting tire thread!
Kudos to Michelin to replacing.

[excellaf350]

I don't drive it daily so I just leave the tires at 80. Front and rear. But only required to run 55 front by Ford specs.

My spare was at 80. It's old, original firestone. I probably should replace that as well. But that's not the tire that blew up. It's was another BFG.

I'm glad they are standing behind it. But I would have rather bought new ones knowing there was a defective tire on the truck. They know these tires are defective but didn't recall them because most are out of warranty with mileage or already long gone. I would have preferred to replace them before failure. Could have been bad. I credit the Hensley for being able to easily maintain control at 65+ on only 3 tires and 10k lbs behind me.

[BlackAces]

Originally Posted by blkmagikca

Here is the Smart Weigh report:

http://vsquare.com/howard/photos/air...smartweigh.pdf

According to that weight slip your trailer was 450# overweight.

Putting on new axles with a higher load capacity does not change the vehicle's certified GAWR or the GVWR. Only the vehicle manufacturer or a certified vehicle modifier has the authority to change those values.

[BlackAces]

Originally Posted by tjdonahoe

Maybe this will knock the wind out of these folks that said that Michelin won't stand behind their tires on a trailer.......

Did they know it was on a RV trailer?

[BlackAces]

Originally Posted by Ted S.

When I bought my Airstream I was offered a $2500 upgrade to go the Michelins. So how can they offer them if they are a misapplication ?

I ended up upgrading on my own for a lot less money.

Because they are the vehicle builder.

Vehicle certification will cause misapplications. If your trailer's certification has Original Equipment ST tires and other options are not mentioned for that model tire manufacturers will honor the vehicle manufacturers OE tire fitments.

[BlackAces]

Originally Posted by BlackAces

Did they know it was on a RV trailer?

If you email Michelin of North America and ask them if you can use any of their LT tires to replace the ST tires that came on your RV trailer they are going to say no. Write the email.

A few years ago there was a recall for Uniroyal LT235/85R16E tires. It fell in a time frame where a RV trailer manufacturer had used them as OEM on a complete trailer series. Because Uniroyal could not provide enough replacements to satisfy the recall Michelin - the Parent Owner - stepped in and used Michelin name brand tires to fill the gap. The point here is, Vehicle manufacturer's can use any DOT highway tire they deem an appropriate fitment. Some of the sporty Danali RV trailers come equipped with 20" Passenger tires. It's the vehicle manufacturer's prerogative.

It's also important to remember that FMVSS standards only apply to vehicle builders. They only provide compliance with minimum safety standards.

When the tire experts posting in this thread recommend reserves of 12 - 15% above the load carried they are not kidding around. A safe ride for an RV tire - any design - inflated to the load carried is - IMO - a ride designed to fail.

[AtomicNo13]

Whats the difference, failure is failure despite the name brand.

[GMFL]

Agreed, but, the frequency of failure by name brand during real world usage is where the rubber meets the road.

[blkmagikca]

Black Aces -> My trailer was NOT overweight. The upgraded axles were offered to me and installed by JC before the Smart weigh was done. I asked if I needed a new label on my ASAP and was told it was not necessary. If you were ordering a new trailer and at that time specified the heavier duty axles, then the label would show the higher weight limits.

[Action]

So you have 8750 of trailer weight and 9000 pounds of load capacity for the axles?

Or a little less than a 3% margin in axle capacity.
Dividing that 9000 by 4 = 2250 #s, which means one corner is over loaded. Not sure about how that will impact axle life and I guessing that isn't a good thing.

I have a boat trailer that is like that scenario. Except it is the tires that have less than a 5% margin in load capacity. The boat trailer manufacturer sure went on the skinny side when putting the total running gear package together.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Action

[blkmagikca]

At the time it was weighed, all my holding tanks were filled to capacity - 55 gallons of fresh water plus 35 gallons wash water and 35 gallons of waste. That's 125 gallons at 10 lbs per gallon or 1,250 lbs, much more than usual. It was at the end of the Escapade in Tucson and I had not as yet dumped the tanks. The new axles are rated at 4,500 lbs each instead of 4,000 lbs each. The original GVWR was 8,700 lbs on the sticker, where 700 lbs relates to what the hitch carries. On that basis the new 4,500 lb axles brings the GVWR up to 9,700 lbs. All this was done at JC.