Accord EX V6 Tire problem
My front right tire (stock Michelin) suddenly lost all of its air while
cruising along on a parkway. By the time I felt the loss (seconds) in my steering and reaching the side of the road the tire was totally destroyed. I changed it and took the tire to the nearest Michelin dealer thinking that it would be replaced under the Michelin guarantee. The dealer examined the tire and reported that there were no obvious reasons for the loss of air, no punctures in the tread, valve appeared okay and concluded that somehow the tire lost air due to some external force that could not be determined because the tire was severely damaged. The sidewalls were shredded as if I drove the car for a considerable distance on the flat tire. He spoke to Michelin customer service and they offered to replace the tire for half the cost ($100) of a new tire ($200). I think this is a very poor effort on Michelin's part in support of their product. Since there is no evidence of a puncture they are blaming the user for the failure instead of assuming the doubt and replacing the tire, after all the tire could have failed due to "poor workmanship or manufacturing defect" Bottom line Michelin's guarantee is very explicit in stating what it will "not" cover- everything or nothing depending on who reads it. If there is no evidence of a puncture then Michelin assumes the tire is free of defects but somehow was damaged from some external force ergo forget any guarantee. At the end of the day I did not accept the Michelin offer because to do so I would have had to sign a waiver of my rights giving up any recourse I may have to recover my loss. I went to another Michelin dealer and purchased a new tire for about the amount of the replacement tire offer from Michelin. Has anyone experienced the tire guaranty mumbo jumbo and if so have you been able to get some relief from the manufacturer??? BoB -- BoB |
Re: Accord EX V6 Tire problem
"BoB De" <decabobnospam@optonline.net> wrote in message news:x4cNb.32310$G04.6637561@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.n et... > At the end of the day I did not accept the Michelin offer because to do so I > would have had to sign a waiver of my rights giving up any recourse I may > have to recover my loss. Which, had you accepted,would have been $100. I went to another Michelin dealer and purchased a > new tire for about the amount of the replacement tire offer from Michelin. So, now you're at *two* trips to tire stores, and time at both, I'm guessing. For a hundred bucks? What if the problem was with the _rim_? Why should Michelin be liable for that? |
Re: Accord EX V6 Tire problem
"BoB De" <decabobnospam@optonline.net> wrote in message news:x4cNb.32310$G04.6637561@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.n et... > At the end of the day I did not accept the Michelin offer because to do so I > would have had to sign a waiver of my rights giving up any recourse I may > have to recover my loss. Which, had you accepted,would have been $100. I went to another Michelin dealer and purchased a > new tire for about the amount of the replacement tire offer from Michelin. So, now you're at *two* trips to tire stores, and time at both, I'm guessing. For a hundred bucks? What if the problem was with the _rim_? Why should Michelin be liable for that? |
Re: Accord EX V6 Tire problem
"BoB De" <decabobnospam@optonline.net> wrote in message news:x4cNb.32310$G04.6637561@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.n et... > At the end of the day I did not accept the Michelin offer because to do so I > would have had to sign a waiver of my rights giving up any recourse I may > have to recover my loss. Which, had you accepted,would have been $100. I went to another Michelin dealer and purchased a > new tire for about the amount of the replacement tire offer from Michelin. So, now you're at *two* trips to tire stores, and time at both, I'm guessing. For a hundred bucks? What if the problem was with the _rim_? Why should Michelin be liable for that? |
Re: Accord EX V6 Tire problem
"BoB De" <decabobnospam@optonline.net> wrote in message news:x4cNb.32310$G04.6637561@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.n et... > At the end of the day I did not accept the Michelin offer because to do so I > would have had to sign a waiver of my rights giving up any recourse I may > have to recover my loss. Which, had you accepted,would have been $100. I went to another Michelin dealer and purchased a > new tire for about the amount of the replacement tire offer from Michelin. So, now you're at *two* trips to tire stores, and time at both, I'm guessing. For a hundred bucks? What if the problem was with the _rim_? Why should Michelin be liable for that? |
Re: Accord EX V6 Tire problem
You got the standard reply. I used to be a Firestone tire dealer. Now
days there isn't much that would be covered. About the only thing is tread separation that has not resulted in total failure. Better to have coverage with your car insurance. The guys I have delt with at State Farm are much better at keeping their customers happy then any tire company I know of. bob Stephen Bigelow wrote: > > "BoB De" <decabobnospam@optonline.net> wrote in message > news:x4cNb.32310$G04.6637561@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.n et... > > > At the end of the day I did not accept the Michelin offer because to do so > I > > would have had to sign a waiver of my rights giving up any recourse I may > > have to recover my loss. > > Which, had you accepted,would have been $100. > > I went to another Michelin dealer and purchased a > > new tire for about the amount of the replacement tire offer from Michelin. > > So, now you're at *two* trips to tire stores, and time at both, I'm > guessing. > For a hundred bucks? > > What if the problem was with the _rim_? Why should Michelin be liable for > that? |
Re: Accord EX V6 Tire problem
You got the standard reply. I used to be a Firestone tire dealer. Now
days there isn't much that would be covered. About the only thing is tread separation that has not resulted in total failure. Better to have coverage with your car insurance. The guys I have delt with at State Farm are much better at keeping their customers happy then any tire company I know of. bob Stephen Bigelow wrote: > > "BoB De" <decabobnospam@optonline.net> wrote in message > news:x4cNb.32310$G04.6637561@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.n et... > > > At the end of the day I did not accept the Michelin offer because to do so > I > > would have had to sign a waiver of my rights giving up any recourse I may > > have to recover my loss. > > Which, had you accepted,would have been $100. > > I went to another Michelin dealer and purchased a > > new tire for about the amount of the replacement tire offer from Michelin. > > So, now you're at *two* trips to tire stores, and time at both, I'm > guessing. > For a hundred bucks? > > What if the problem was with the _rim_? Why should Michelin be liable for > that? |
Re: Accord EX V6 Tire problem
You got the standard reply. I used to be a Firestone tire dealer. Now
days there isn't much that would be covered. About the only thing is tread separation that has not resulted in total failure. Better to have coverage with your car insurance. The guys I have delt with at State Farm are much better at keeping their customers happy then any tire company I know of. bob Stephen Bigelow wrote: > > "BoB De" <decabobnospam@optonline.net> wrote in message > news:x4cNb.32310$G04.6637561@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.n et... > > > At the end of the day I did not accept the Michelin offer because to do so > I > > would have had to sign a waiver of my rights giving up any recourse I may > > have to recover my loss. > > Which, had you accepted,would have been $100. > > I went to another Michelin dealer and purchased a > > new tire for about the amount of the replacement tire offer from Michelin. > > So, now you're at *two* trips to tire stores, and time at both, I'm > guessing. > For a hundred bucks? > > What if the problem was with the _rim_? Why should Michelin be liable for > that? |
Re: Accord EX V6 Tire problem
You got the standard reply. I used to be a Firestone tire dealer. Now
days there isn't much that would be covered. About the only thing is tread separation that has not resulted in total failure. Better to have coverage with your car insurance. The guys I have delt with at State Farm are much better at keeping their customers happy then any tire company I know of. bob Stephen Bigelow wrote: > > "BoB De" <decabobnospam@optonline.net> wrote in message > news:x4cNb.32310$G04.6637561@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.n et... > > > At the end of the day I did not accept the Michelin offer because to do so > I > > would have had to sign a waiver of my rights giving up any recourse I may > > have to recover my loss. > > Which, had you accepted,would have been $100. > > I went to another Michelin dealer and purchased a > > new tire for about the amount of the replacement tire offer from Michelin. > > So, now you're at *two* trips to tire stores, and time at both, I'm > guessing. > For a hundred bucks? > > What if the problem was with the _rim_? Why should Michelin be liable for > that? |
Re: Accord EX V6 Tire problem
It isn't about money but I am frustrated by the unresponsiveness of Michelin
to claim that it is not their problem. As an engineer I was never so certain that the product I designed was never at fault and in 50 years of driving I have never experienced a road hazard that completely destroyed a tire like this one. Yes it could have been a faulty rim or any of many causes including tire failure due to improper manufacture. But, I am dead in the water unless I can afford a lawyer go to court and sue and maybe get the tire replaced, so I am stuck replacing the tire at my cost and venting my frustration for an unfair treatment of my problem. BoB De "Stephen Bigelow" <sbigelowPOV@rogers.com> wrote in message news:NZdNb.148581$AAe1.21860@news01.bloor.is.net.c able.rogers.com... > > "BoB De" <decabobnospam@optonline.net> wrote in message > news:x4cNb.32310$G04.6637561@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.n et... > > > At the end of the day I did not accept the Michelin offer because to do so > I > > would have had to sign a waiver of my rights giving up any recourse I may > > have to recover my loss. > > Which, had you accepted,would have been $100. > > I went to another Michelin dealer and purchased a > > new tire for about the amount of the replacement tire offer from Michelin. > > So, now you're at *two* trips to tire stores, and time at both, I'm > guessing. > For a hundred bucks? > > What if the problem was with the _rim_? Why should Michelin be liable for > that? > > |
Re: Accord EX V6 Tire problem
It isn't about money but I am frustrated by the unresponsiveness of Michelin
to claim that it is not their problem. As an engineer I was never so certain that the product I designed was never at fault and in 50 years of driving I have never experienced a road hazard that completely destroyed a tire like this one. Yes it could have been a faulty rim or any of many causes including tire failure due to improper manufacture. But, I am dead in the water unless I can afford a lawyer go to court and sue and maybe get the tire replaced, so I am stuck replacing the tire at my cost and venting my frustration for an unfair treatment of my problem. BoB De "Stephen Bigelow" <sbigelowPOV@rogers.com> wrote in message news:NZdNb.148581$AAe1.21860@news01.bloor.is.net.c able.rogers.com... > > "BoB De" <decabobnospam@optonline.net> wrote in message > news:x4cNb.32310$G04.6637561@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.n et... > > > At the end of the day I did not accept the Michelin offer because to do so > I > > would have had to sign a waiver of my rights giving up any recourse I may > > have to recover my loss. > > Which, had you accepted,would have been $100. > > I went to another Michelin dealer and purchased a > > new tire for about the amount of the replacement tire offer from Michelin. > > So, now you're at *two* trips to tire stores, and time at both, I'm > guessing. > For a hundred bucks? > > What if the problem was with the _rim_? Why should Michelin be liable for > that? > > |
Re: Accord EX V6 Tire problem
It isn't about money but I am frustrated by the unresponsiveness of Michelin
to claim that it is not their problem. As an engineer I was never so certain that the product I designed was never at fault and in 50 years of driving I have never experienced a road hazard that completely destroyed a tire like this one. Yes it could have been a faulty rim or any of many causes including tire failure due to improper manufacture. But, I am dead in the water unless I can afford a lawyer go to court and sue and maybe get the tire replaced, so I am stuck replacing the tire at my cost and venting my frustration for an unfair treatment of my problem. BoB De "Stephen Bigelow" <sbigelowPOV@rogers.com> wrote in message news:NZdNb.148581$AAe1.21860@news01.bloor.is.net.c able.rogers.com... > > "BoB De" <decabobnospam@optonline.net> wrote in message > news:x4cNb.32310$G04.6637561@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.n et... > > > At the end of the day I did not accept the Michelin offer because to do so > I > > would have had to sign a waiver of my rights giving up any recourse I may > > have to recover my loss. > > Which, had you accepted,would have been $100. > > I went to another Michelin dealer and purchased a > > new tire for about the amount of the replacement tire offer from Michelin. > > So, now you're at *two* trips to tire stores, and time at both, I'm > guessing. > For a hundred bucks? > > What if the problem was with the _rim_? Why should Michelin be liable for > that? > > |
Re: Accord EX V6 Tire problem
It isn't about money but I am frustrated by the unresponsiveness of Michelin
to claim that it is not their problem. As an engineer I was never so certain that the product I designed was never at fault and in 50 years of driving I have never experienced a road hazard that completely destroyed a tire like this one. Yes it could have been a faulty rim or any of many causes including tire failure due to improper manufacture. But, I am dead in the water unless I can afford a lawyer go to court and sue and maybe get the tire replaced, so I am stuck replacing the tire at my cost and venting my frustration for an unfair treatment of my problem. BoB De "Stephen Bigelow" <sbigelowPOV@rogers.com> wrote in message news:NZdNb.148581$AAe1.21860@news01.bloor.is.net.c able.rogers.com... > > "BoB De" <decabobnospam@optonline.net> wrote in message > news:x4cNb.32310$G04.6637561@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.n et... > > > At the end of the day I did not accept the Michelin offer because to do so > I > > would have had to sign a waiver of my rights giving up any recourse I may > > have to recover my loss. > > Which, had you accepted,would have been $100. > > I went to another Michelin dealer and purchased a > > new tire for about the amount of the replacement tire offer from Michelin. > > So, now you're at *two* trips to tire stores, and time at both, I'm > guessing. > For a hundred bucks? > > What if the problem was with the _rim_? Why should Michelin be liable for > that? > > |
Re: Accord EX V6 Tire problem
"BoB De" <decabobnospam@optonline.net> wrote in message news:2gfNb.35592$G04.7286302@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.n et... > It isn't about money but I am frustrated by the unresponsiveness of Michelin > to claim that it is not their problem. As an engineer I was never so certain > that the product I designed was never at fault and in 50 years of driving I > have never experienced a road hazard that completely destroyed a tire like > this one. Yes it could have been a faulty rim or any of many causes > including tire failure due to improper manufacture. But, I am dead in the > water unless I can afford a lawyer go to court and sue and maybe get the > tire replaced, so I am stuck replacing the tire at my cost and venting my > frustration for an unfair treatment of my problem. What's your problem? They offered to give you 50% off the purchase price of a new tire, yet you're complaining that they should do more. You're saying IF you had the money, you'd get a lawyer to sue them for the full amount of a new tire. A little bit ludicrous if you ask me (you didn't, but, that's the bonus side of usenet, you get more than you asked for [for free too]). If you're willing to replace the tire out of your own pocket, why not take them up on their 50% offer. Then still whine and cry that you were held up, by the big bad tire manufacturer. -- Brian www.accesswave.ca/~orion |
Re: Accord EX V6 Tire problem
"BoB De" <decabobnospam@optonline.net> wrote in message news:2gfNb.35592$G04.7286302@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.n et... > It isn't about money but I am frustrated by the unresponsiveness of Michelin > to claim that it is not their problem. As an engineer I was never so certain > that the product I designed was never at fault and in 50 years of driving I > have never experienced a road hazard that completely destroyed a tire like > this one. Yes it could have been a faulty rim or any of many causes > including tire failure due to improper manufacture. But, I am dead in the > water unless I can afford a lawyer go to court and sue and maybe get the > tire replaced, so I am stuck replacing the tire at my cost and venting my > frustration for an unfair treatment of my problem. What's your problem? They offered to give you 50% off the purchase price of a new tire, yet you're complaining that they should do more. You're saying IF you had the money, you'd get a lawyer to sue them for the full amount of a new tire. A little bit ludicrous if you ask me (you didn't, but, that's the bonus side of usenet, you get more than you asked for [for free too]). If you're willing to replace the tire out of your own pocket, why not take them up on their 50% offer. Then still whine and cry that you were held up, by the big bad tire manufacturer. -- Brian www.accesswave.ca/~orion |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:59 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands