Quote:
Originally Posted by sourdough
I am not questioning your "engineering" expertise, I question the definitive data that excludes the possibility of a "China bomb" - none has been presented. "Studies", unless performed on the actual failures are then just a basis for conjecture, assumptions and possibilities - nothing is proven by them other than what the data actually shows. To say that more than 1/2 of the RVs at a show had a tire in an overload condition, then jump that actual data, to state the fact that all tire failures are due to overload, underinflation or interply shear, and there are no defective tires from the factory is.....well, a 'fer stretch. IMO the data collected by those that have the failures and then share is far more definitive than studies on good tires. But that's just me.
For me, there is no "hornet's nest" surrounding the "China bomb" nomenclature. It's simply a fact that hasn't been refuted by any statement made in this thread thus far. Whether one chooses to call them a "China Bomb", "Shandong crap" or whatever to simplify addressing them seems OK to me. A "study" on "normal tires" does not disprove their existence IMO.
I know you have your thoughts on the subject and that's fine. We can agree to disagree.  |
Looking forward to your presentation of the physical evidence that confirmes "China Bomb" as the root cause of various failures. This evidence would, of course, be of great interest to the engineers that contributed to the TIA Condition Manuals (Passenger, Light Truck & Heavy Truck editions).
Photos or chemical analysis of the claimed "defects" would be most helpful to the tire industry as a whole. Simply making a claim for the presence of a suspect "defect" is not sufficient. Actual evidence is what is needed if one wants to establish the "guilt" of certain tires.
RE RVSEF data. As I understand it, this consists of 10 to 20,000 measurements collected since 1993 at numerous locations across the country. RV owners paid a fee to have their RV weighed. This data corroborates similar data collected by US DOT in relation to the Ford Explorer recall that demonstrated a good portion of the driving public operating at "significant" levels of underinflation. This data is a major portion of why all new cars come with TPMS. During the investigation phase of the Explorer situation well over 10,000 tires were collected and inspected with over 4,000 receiving "cut tire autopsy" level of inspection. So there is data to support that high tire failure rates are directly related to high rates of operation in underinflated/overloaded condition.
I do find your request that I need to prove the negative to reject your claim of the still mysterious "China Bomb" condition a bit telling. If you want to make a claim then you need to present evidence to support the claim. It is not my responsibility or the responsibility of others to disprove your claim.
At this point, until you can provide the physical evidence of your claimed "China Bomb" condition and the data that supports the idea that tires with this condition are prone to failure and those without the "defect" will not fail, I am done spending my time with you on this topic.