The Elsmar Cove Business Standards Discussion Forums More Free Files Forum Discussion Thread Post Attachments Listing Elsmar Cove Discussion Forums Main Page
Welcome to what was The Original Cayman Cove Forums!
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums

Search the Elsmar Cove!

Wooden Line
This is a "Frozen" Legacy Forum.
Most links on this page do NOT work.
Discussions since 2001 are HERE

Owl Line
The New Elsmar Cove Forums   The New Elsmar Cove Forums
  Miscellaneous Quality Topics
  Firestone Articles (Other Interesting Articles)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Firestone Articles (Other Interesting Articles)
Andy Bassett
Forum Contributor

Posts: 274
From:Donegal Ireland
Registered: Jun 1999

posted 07 September 2000 03:14 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Andy Bassett   Click Here to Email Andy Bassett     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I can't for the life of me find the thread where we started to discuss this, but somebody has very kindly sent me a copy of an article which i paste in below.

I have already circulated this in my customers, IF ANYBODY ELSE HAS ARTICLES OF SIMILAR CONTENT, PLEASE POST HERE, OR SEND THEM TO ME, I WILL MAKE GOOD USE OF THEM.

Lawmakers Slam Firestone, Ford on Tires
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. lawmakers slammed Bridgestone/Firestone Inc.
(5108.T) and Ford Motor Co (F.N) for failing to sound the alarm early
enough on the failure of Firestone tires linked to at least 88 deaths in
the United States.
In the first of two hearings on the same day by Congress,senators said
it seemed as if the companies did not have the interests of the American
consumer in mind when they tackled the problem of treads separating,
leading to the fatal accidents.

``It sure looks like several critical players were covering their
ears,'' said Sen. Richard Shelby, Chairman of the Transportation
Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee.

Firestone, owned by Japanese tiremaker Bridgestone Corp., announced on
Aug. 9 a voluntary recall of 6.5 million 15-inch tires in response to a
U.S. probe that began in May. So far nearly two million have been
replaced, and several more people have died in tire-linked accidents
since the recall.

Most of the Ford Explorer sport utility vehicles were outfitted with
Firestone tires, and this vehicle has featured prominently in the
accident statistics.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration began investigating
the accidents formally in May and Shelby questioned if this had been
soon enough.

Facing a grilling by the lawmakers, Bridgestone/Firestone Inc. CEO
Masatoshi Ono said his company would not rest until it knew the reason
for the fatal accidents.

``Unfortunately, I am not able to give you a conclusive cause at this
time. However, you have my word that we will continue until we find the
cause,'' Ono said in testimony before the panel.

Ono and Jacques Nasser, president and CEO of Ford (F.N), and other
officials are due to testify in the House of Representatives about the
largest tire recall in U.S. history later on Wednesday.

A Ford official reiterated that the accidents, some of which involved
the Explorer rolling over, were a tire problem rather than something
linked to the performance of the vehicle.

Helen Petrauskas, Ford's vice president of environmental and safety
engineering, said the automaker began looking for defects in the tire at
the same time it was replacing tires overseas after learning of reports
of tread separation.

``We had new tires tested under three separate, severe test conditions
to try to cause tread separation to happen,'' she said. ``No defect
trend was found.''

Panel member Barbara Mikulski, a Maryland Democrat, said she had
questions about why American consumers were kept in the dark when tires
were replaced or recalled in more than 15 countries outside the United
States.

``American consumers need better and more timely information on product
safety,'' she said in an opening statement.

``Many in this Congress have prided themselves on loosening Federal
Regulations -- this crisis has shown why regulations and oversight are
needed to ensure public safety.''

At the rear of the House hearing room a suspect Wilderness AT tire was
on display, its tread ripped away like a giant banana peel.

IP: Logged

EyeSpy
unregistered
posted 07 September 2000 02:30 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Here's an article to ponder:
http://cnnfn.cnn.com/2000/09/07/companies/firestone_recall/

IP: Logged

EyeSpy
unregistered
posted 08 September 2000 04:02 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
As of Sunday - Firestone has allowed their PR firm to walk away from the issue at hand.
http://news.excite.com/news/ap/000907/23/tire-deaths-crisis-control

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 09 September 2000 11:23 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by EyeSpy:

Firestone has allowed their PR firm to walk away ...


I doubt Firestone had a say in whether the PR firm stayed or went.

IP: Logged

David Mullins
Forum Contributor

Posts: 248
From:Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 10 September 2000 08:14 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for David Mullins   Click Here to Email David Mullins     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The following id from American Quality Mall at http://www.americanquality.com/Quality%20News/090700-1.htm

It appears to have a couple of small inaccuracies, but was interesting from a perception viewpoint.


Quality auditor OK'd Decatur tire plant
By Del Jones, USA TODAY

Another major company may get swept up in the tire saga that has caused corporate crises at Bridgestone/Firestone and Ford Motor.

Lloyd's Register, a 240-year-old company with headquarters in the United Kingdom and 200 offices worldwide, inspected Firestone's Decatur, Ill., plant in 1997 and awarded it the quality seal of approval known as QS-9000.

Bruce Kaster, a lawyer who sues tire companies, says he doubts if Lloyd's will be sued, because companies can hide the truth from auditors. But James Kolka, a lawyer who has written a book about the legal liability of such quality certifications, says there is no reason plaintiffs won't name Lloyd's along with Bridgestone and Ford.

Federal regulators have linked 88 fatalities in the USA to wrecks involving tread separation in Firestone tires, mostly on Ford Explorers. Most of those tires were produced in Decatur.

QS-9000 is the automotive subset of ISO-9000, a rigid quality standard well known to manufacturers worldwide. In this case, it saved the trouble and expense of each automaker inspecting Firestone's Decatur plant. Instead, Firestone hired Lloyd's to inspect the plant and verify its process quality for all.

The Lloyd's Register Web site says it is in "the business of safety." Last month, it won a multimillion-dollar contract to verify the safety of a $14 billion high-speed rail system in Taiwan, the largest such rail project in the world.

Phone calls Thursday to Lloyd's headquarters in Croydon, United Kingdom, and to offices in New York and Houston were not returned.

Bridgestone/Firestone also had no response .

"I wouldn't have any basis to render a comment," says Steve Walsh, Ford's QS-9000 expert.

QS-9000 has come under some criticism for being long on paperwork and short on results. The running joke among quality experts is that a plant making life preservers of cement could get certified provided procedures were written and exactly followed, Kolka says. Many automakers are switching to a German quality standard.

Jim Smith of Cambridge Management Sciences says he was recently at a telecommunications plant that was being ISO-9000 certified, not by Lloyd's. "The auditors spent virtually three days outside smoking, and they came back with five trivial quality problems."

Lloyd's Register is not affiliated with Lloyd's of London. Its roots go back to when insurers needed verification that ships they covered were seaworthy.

QS-9000 certifications are good for three years. The Decatur plant is due for re-certification this month.

------------------

IP: Logged

EyeSpy
unregistered
posted 12 September 2000 12:34 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Andy

Mid-way through this article (Dated 1997) explains that Firestone could have been aware that belt/rubber "sepearation" was a possibility as long ago as the early 1970's
http://www.ohio.com/bj/projects/rubber/080397/lede.htm

IP: Logged

Don Watt
Forum Contributor

Posts: 70
From:Notts,United Kingdom
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 12 September 2000 03:47 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Don Watt   Click Here to Email Don Watt     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Loooks like more problems from Ford are coming to the surface: -

Ford Knew of Ignition Module Problems -

Report DETROIT (Reuters) - Ford Motor Co. (F.N) was aware of increasing problems with an ignition systems part but withheld
data from federal regulators looking into complaints the components were failing in large numbers, the New York Times
reported on Tuesday.

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the report said, Ford engineers, safety officials and board members were aware of growing problems with the thick film ignition system, which
passes sparks to the engine distributor. The system would shut down if it got too hot and cause the car to stall, the report said.

The paper said the No. 2 automaker provided about a dozen documents to federal regulators. The company told regulators who opened and closed five investigations in the issue, it did not know of any defect with the part.

However, Ford had internal studies about the part, consumer complaints, reports of fatal and serious accidents and lawsuits, as well as warranty claims that during some years
topped 40 percent, the paper said.

Ford spokeswoman Susan Krusel said Ford and investigators from the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration(NHTSA) had an ``honest disagreement'' over the wording of some NHTSA questions that was later resolved. NHTSA did not find that Ford had deliberately misled it, and later said plaintiff attorney contentions did not change its findings that there is not a safety defect trend, Krusel said.

Ford also said none of the cases filed against it has proved that an accident was caused by a module failure, adding that the modules were more reliable than earlier systems.

On Aug. 30, a California judge said he was prepared to order Ford to recall nearly 2 million vehicles after finding that the automaker misled consumers about the alleged module design defect. The ignition modules were put on 22 million vehicles from 1983-1995.

The New York Times story comes as Ford continues to grapp with the recall of 6.5 million Firestone tires, mostly on Ford Explorer sport utility vehicles. Plaintiff attorneys and others have said Ford knew of tire problems on the Explorer years
before it urged Firestone to recall the tires.

IP: Logged

AJPaton
Forum Contributor

Posts: 73
From:Fayetteville, NC USA
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 14 September 2000 01:09 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AJPaton   Click Here to Email AJPaton     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by David Mullins:
QS-9000 has come under some criticism for being long on paperwork and short on results. The running joke among quality experts is that a plant making life preservers of cement could get certified provided procedures were written and exactly followed, Kolka says.
[/B]

Y'know, this joke is true. After all ISO is designed to assure that you know what your customer ordered, 4.3-Contract Review, and follow it up with checking out customer complaints, 4.14-Corrective and Preventive Actions.

What it doesn't go into is telling you what you have to make, just that you're supposed to give the customer what he wants.

There might be a market out there for cement life preservers; I wouldn't have thought there'd be a market for pet rocks, but I'd have been wrong.

For safety standards you go to industry and/or product specific standards. In the product standards I've read, the system of producing the goods is never addressed, only the specifications of the final product.

I think that the misunderstanding lies in the fact that ISO addresses consistancy of product rather than reliability, etc. And people are used to standards that give specs for the final product.

AJP

IP: Logged

David Mullins
Forum Contributor

Posts: 248
From:Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 15 September 2000 01:32 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for David Mullins   Click Here to Email David Mullins     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
That's alright,
I spent 15 minutes this morning explaining to 3 third year commerce students that a quality management system wasn't just a marketing gimmick.
Are they teaching them this stuff!!!!

------------------

IP: Logged

Andy Bassett
Forum Contributor

Posts: 274
From:Donegal Ireland
Registered: Jun 1999

posted 15 September 2000 06:41 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Andy Bassett   Click Here to Email Andy Bassett     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
You are right David, but lets step out of our Quality shoes for a moment and ask ourselves why do companies take up ISO registration, to improve their quality or to be able to continue to market their goods to customers that are demanding registration.

As far as i can see the latter is in the majority, no wander that business students view it as a Marketing gimmick.

Regards

------------------
Andy B

IP: Logged

Andy Bassett
Forum Contributor

Posts: 274
From:Donegal Ireland
Registered: Jun 1999

posted 15 September 2000 06:42 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Andy Bassett   Click Here to Email Andy Bassett     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
You are right David, but lets step out of our Quality shoes for a moment and ask ourselves why do companies take up ISO registration, to improve their quality or to be able to continue to market their goods to customers that are demanding registration.

As far as i can see the latter is in the majority, no wander that business students view it as a Marketing gimmick.

Regards

------------------
Andy B

IP: Logged

Randy
Forum Wizard

Posts: 228
From:Barstow, CA, USA
Registered: Jun 1999

posted 15 September 2000 09:12 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randy   Click Here to Email Randy     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I agree with you Andy.

My former employer (a major government services contractor) makes a big deal about ISO 9002 certification. I was with the company for 4 years from the beginning of the contract at a major Army installation until 7 days ago. The only reason that I could see to spend the time going thru the process and jumping thru all the hoops required was chest thumping and blowing smoke up the customers rump. The quality of the contract delivery was a joke. It was just a marketing thing......no real attempt seemed to be made to improve anything other than the perception of doing what we said we were doing.

IP: Logged

Andy Bassett
Forum Contributor

Posts: 274
From:Donegal Ireland
Registered: Jun 1999

posted 15 September 2000 09:24 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Andy Bassett   Click Here to Email Andy Bassett     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hello Randy

It looks like unfortunately we share a similar paradigm, it wish it wasnt true.

PS what are you doing now. Did you get demoted to a consultant?

Regards

------------------
Andy B

IP: Logged

CarolX
Forum Contributor

Posts: 108
From:Illinois, USA
Registered: Jun 2000

posted 15 September 2000 09:44 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for CarolX   Click Here to Email CarolX     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Andy - David - Randy,

You have hit the nail on the proverbial head. Most companies (mine included) persue registration primarily as a marketing tool. What else are we to do when we call on a new customer, and their first question is "Are you ISO registered". Many potential new customers will not even consider us unless we achieve registration.

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 15 September 2000 01:37 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I've never had a client that went through registrationjust because they thought it would be a good idea.

IP: Logged

Dawn
Forum Contributor

Posts: 245
From:St. Marys, PA
Registered: Sep 98

posted 17 September 2000 10:18 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dawn   Click Here to Email Dawn     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
People can blame QS 9000 on everything that goes wrong in a company if they want to. Fact is - they would rather blame the system than management themselves. As far as stating auditors are standing outside smoking cigarettes - someone is just blowing smoke- and I don't mean the auditors smoking the ciagrettes. If it was known that the audit wasn't being performed correctly - where were the rest of the employees? Including management? Every company on this earth can be QS9000 certified and still falsify documentation and send a nonconforming product knowingly. Every certified company can convince an inspector to ship nonconforming product - especially when the person telling them to ship it is their boss. Every management employee sitting on the Board of Directors or in staff meetings can agree to ship scrap whether they are QS certified or not. So, lets get off the quality standard thing, shall we? This problem could have happened to any company at any time. Decisions are made like these every day. We can't blame anyone but ourselves. Let's all hope we work for a company who will sit down and say: No, we can't ship this product (I do). We can sort or we can scrap. But we don't ship nonconforming product. And, yes - we are QS9000 certified and proud of it. The company (Ford) who wrote the book themselves went against their own rules. That is not the standards fault. They were not meeting the intent.

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 18 September 2000 12:05 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
A friend of mine stopped by today. He ran an auto repair shop some years ago (inb his 'youth'). Got married and ended up working for Kodak as a tech in an inkjet design engineering lab (some 15 years ago). He knows cars. Now he owns a couple of restaurants (didn't like working for 'the man' - saved some $ and started 1 and then started another - both doing well).

So - I said something about the Firestine thing. he said he knew ther were problems but hadn't been following it in the news. It was a long story but back in about 1976 his wife took a trip to florida on 4 Firestone tires with 6000 miles on them. On the trip down the treads separated on 2 of them and screwed up the car. he flew to FL and drove the car back because his wife was freaked out after 2 serious blowouts on the way down. He ended up with an adjuster from Firestone who started out a hard ass but - my friend kept the tires that blew out - with the evidence was a quick settlement.

The tires which blew out both went in Tennnessee and both were rear tires. The tread, when they separated, the tread wrapped around the rear axle and flapped around the outside of the rear wheel well screwing up the paint and such on the outside of the car. Both sides...

he sais the rep came out and was an asshole until he measured tread depth. My friend said from then out it was a cake walk.

Firestone paid for his flight to FL and his wife's flight back, damage to car, 4 new tires, etc. But -- they 'required' the tires that blew out (he was not allowed to keep them {read evidence}) be given to the Firestone rep. My friend told me that he nerver bought a Firestone product again.

This is an old design problem. It has been there too long. This story is from back in the 1970's!

No matter how you look at it the whole thing is a design 'paradigm' problem going back years. It has nothing to do with QS-9000, auditors or anything like that.

Could a QS auditor have spotted it? Possibly. When you get into what the auditor sees you get into a problematic area, however. And it's not just an auditor thing. I recently ended up terminating a contract with a company because of its 'Firestone like' attitude. I was in the test lab where they did returns analysis. A request for a corrective action came in from a customer. The DUT was tested for 2 days. The failure complained about could not be reproduced. However, during the testing several other failures occured.

The report to the customer stated they could not reproduce the failure the CAR identified -- so it was a moot issue (no corrective required). They did not inform the customer of the failures which did occur. To me this is outright fraud. And I believe the Firestone thing is the same type of situation.

Now - the product -- anti-lock break electronic assemblies [controllers]. Bottom line is if their component fails you still have regular brakes. Failure of their component doesn't typically kill you, but then again.... Can you say Head Games?

Old problem. Ford has bought complaints explainations from Firestone for years as a 'preffered' supplier (going back to Fred Firestone's personal relationship with Henry Ford). Now there are congressional investigations...

My friend stopped buying Firestone tires back in the 1970's. Will you buy a Firestone (or Bridgestone) tire now? In the future? I will not!

[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 18 September 2000).]

IP: Logged

Randy
Forum Wizard

Posts: 228
From:Barstow, CA, USA
Registered: Jun 1999

posted 18 September 2000 12:33 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randy   Click Here to Email Randy     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Yeah Andy I am consultant of sorts now at the same Army installation for another company with higher ethics and for more money too.

All the major contractors here are doing the same hoop dance with their quality programs and the registration thing.. Everybody looks great on paper, and I think the registrars are just taking the checks and running. I can look just from my vantage point and see that there is no way that a real in depth 3rd party audit could be passed by these guys in this place....my lowly opinion of course.

On a previous post somewhere I said that I worked a fatality accident in the 70's that appeared to be caused by the sidewalls failing on Firestone 500 tires. I can't remember the particulars anymore, but I can still remember the tire s real well. I never have driven on Firestones since then, and never will because of what I saw back then as a cop (there were a couple of more accidents in our area).

[This message has been edited by Randy (edited 18 September 2000).]

IP: Logged

Claes Gefvenberg
Forum Contributor

Posts: 23
From:Sweden
Registered: May 2000

posted 18 September 2000 05:19 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Claes Gefvenberg   Click Here to Email Claes Gefvenberg     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Concerning the fact that so many believe that a quality system is nothing more than a sales gimmick:

Yes you are right, most people think so. As carol points out, you hit the nail on the head there.

This fact indicates a major improvement area. We are pretty good at discussing commitment and understanding what it's all about... ...within the profession. But how about spreading the word to the "outsiders"?

The way I see it we often discuss quality and preach among ourselves, and forget about spreading the word. We have lots of room for improvement there.

/Claes

IP: Logged

Jim Evans
Forum Contributor

Posts: 45
From:Union City, MI, USA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 18 September 2000 09:07 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jim Evans   Click Here to Email Jim Evans     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I have to regarded registrations (and their associated costs) as the ante we suppliers have to pay to get into the automotive poker game. This tends to bend the view point to the perspective of being something we "have" to do, not something we "want" or "need" to do to help our businesses. Consequently, there is no real buy-in from top management to the rank in file. For many (most?) of these companies there is very little value added benefit for registration. At my company our top management at the time did look at it as something we "had" to do but they were progressive enough to say how can we do this in a way that will be helpful to our business rather than a burden. Things have worked out fairly decently for us as we get ready for the upgrade to the TE Supplement in December.

Jim


IP: Logged

BWoods
Forum Contributor

Posts: 44
From:Britton, SD, USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 18 September 2000 11:12 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for BWoods   Click Here to Email BWoods     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Marc Smith:
No matter how you look at it the whole thing is a design 'paradigm' problem going back years. It has nothing to do with QS-9000, auditors or anything like that.

Could a QS auditor have spotted it? Possibly.


Marc: I will ask the question a different way:

Should the QS auditor be expected to catch design flaws?

IMHO: No. The QS auditor is there to audit your QOS against the QS standard. In a sense, they are there to pass "judgement" on your 4.4 Design System - not the design.

And as we all know, certification to a QOS standard does not equal "error free" products and services.

IP: Logged

Laura M
Forum Contributor

Posts: 299
From:Rochester, NY US
Registered: Aug 1999

posted 18 September 2000 01:16 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Laura M   Click Here to Email Laura M     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Any 3rd party audit I've been involved in for QS-9000 included customer complaints and warranty analysis. A pareto of customer returns was usually the starting point, and then the associated corrective action. If Firestone is QS then Returned Product Analysis should have been part of the audit?

IP: Logged

Jim Biz
Forum Wizard

Posts: 275
From:ILLINOIS
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 18 September 2000 02:20 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jim Biz   Click Here to Email Jim Biz     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The Ceo of Ford in last weeks hearings explained that their pareto record of nonconfromance "customer complaints" over a timeframe from (1992 to 1999 if I remember correctly)showed that they were aware of but 2 end-user customer complaints in the United States per 1 million tires. Which leads one to wonder how the data was actually presented...

1) How many world wide per 1 mil?
2) How many if you would add world wide dealer return/complaint issues to that?

IP: Logged

Randy
Forum Wizard

Posts: 228
From:Barstow, CA, USA
Registered: Jun 1999

posted 18 September 2000 08:55 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randy   Click Here to Email Randy     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I think a term we may be looking for that might apply here is "acceptable losses (deaths)". Did the CEO of Ford give a target or action figure of the number of incidents that would be required before action took place? What did their quality plan allow? 5? 50? 500? Surely somebody factored this in.

Are these guys into 6 Sigma too? What is the acceptable number of failures per million? 3 point something? How many tires are we looking at? 60 million? That comes out to about 180 failures being acceptable maybe? How many dead folks for the 60 million tires? Not even close to the 6 Sigma range so no sweat.

The target or action figure for my former employer in workers compensation costs was about $3.4 million on our 800 employee contract before people got excited (only about $4250 per employee). The same type of mentality may apply with the FOMOCO folks too.

IP: Logged

Laura M
Forum Contributor

Posts: 299
From:Rochester, NY US
Registered: Aug 1999

posted 19 September 2000 07:21 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Laura M   Click Here to Email Laura M     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
2 per million tires is 8 per million cars...

IP: Logged

Randy
Forum Wizard

Posts: 228
From:Barstow, CA, USA
Registered: Jun 1999

posted 19 September 2000 08:40 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randy   Click Here to Email Randy     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Of course I may be wrong.................my numbers are a little off (6.5 million instard of 60) sorry.

I copied this from the NY Times:

"Since 1995 there has been a steady increase in tire-related accidents in Ford Explorers, from 9 per 1,000 fatal Explorer accidents in 1995, to 11 in 1996 and 20 in 1997 and 25 in 1998, but last year the rate doubled to 52 per 1,000 accidents. Other utility vehicles of similar vintage had tire-related rates fluctuating around an average 6 per 1,000 fatal accidents during the period."

The 99 figures would come to about 52000 deaths per million accidents. Now if we take that number and divide by the total tires recalled (6.5 million) we get 0.008 deaths per tire. Acceptable performance?

[This message has been edited by Randy (edited 19 September 2000).]

IP: Logged

Laura M
Forum Contributor

Posts: 299
From:Rochester, NY US
Registered: Aug 1999

posted 19 September 2000 10:03 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Laura M   Click Here to Email Laura M     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Wasn't checking your math - commenting on the previous numbers....the customers don't care how many per tire, they want to know the failures/car. Had that argument with a supplier once - they kept telling me their PPM in terms of production, but we used 6 per product. Failure mode in warranty was not as severe as the tires, but did result in warranty. Made me nuts to hear data it in terms of production, when the impact on cars was 6 times.

IP: Logged

Jim Biz
Forum Wizard

Posts: 275
From:ILLINOIS
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 19 September 2000 10:14 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jim Biz   Click Here to Email Jim Biz     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
On Ford Explorers only (how many are installed on other models/makes - after orignal purchase etc.?)

Only the fatal accidents? (how many were just Crippling/paralyzing vehicle totaling - without injury etc.?)

Considering only the tire brand names deemed nonconforming under the recall (how many "other tire sizes/models show the same condition?)

Did I not hear last night that with yet another tire manufacturer .... for Lincoln/Mercury SUV's - there is a "concern" that they also "May show tire tread separation? 6 incidents in Saudi within the last year(if memory serves)

Appears this tread separating thing is snowballing... The only "rumor" or reported subject info one doesn't hear is "Root Cause" -- Has anyone heard - Why tread is separating?

Regards
Jim

IP: Logged

Rick Goodson
Forum Wizard

Posts: 102
From:Wuakesha, Wisconsin, USA
Registered: Aug 2000

posted 19 September 2000 11:19 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Rick Goodson   Click Here to Email Rick Goodson     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
National Public Radio (NPR) reported this morning that Continental General Tire and Ford report 6 incidents in Saudi Arabia of tread separation on Lincoln Navigators. They are recalling approximately 200,000 tires.

IP: Logged

Ken K
Forum Contributor

Posts: 44
From:Wisconsin, USA
Registered: Jun 2000

posted 19 September 2000 11:46 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Ken K     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Personally, I have a feeling everyone is pointing the finger at the wrong company. Only one type of vehicle involved with these accidents. Doesn't that seem strange? I have the Wilderness AT's on my '98 Ranger with almost 67,000 miles on them. They'll probably go for another 10-15,000 more. Am I worried? Not one bit. Now, if I had an Explorer...

IP: Logged

Alf Gulford
Forum Contributor

Posts: 60
From:Portland, OR
Registered: Aug 2000

posted 19 September 2000 12:35 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Alf Gulford   Click Here to Email Alf Gulford     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Interesting line of thought. We keep being reminded that there was an apparently similar situation back in the '70s with the Firestone 500s. Has anyone analyzed that data to see if a particular vehicle or vehicle manufacturer was featured more prominently than others?

Just a question.

IP: Logged

Spaceman Spiff
Forum Contributor

Posts: 64
From:FL
Registered: Mar 99

posted 19 September 2000 02:10 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Spaceman Spiff   Click Here to Email Spaceman Spiff     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Good question, Alf... I've been asking that one myself. In my Shainin training I'm taught to ask how do the bad tires (ones separated) know to go to Explorers assembly plants? The answer is obviously, they don't. Then there must be another factor that causes tire separation or at least is an interaction.

Also, has anyone studied whether it is the front tire or the rear tires that fail in these accidents. If there is a pattern, wouldn't that points more to the Explorer and Ford as the "guilty" party?

... just my thoughts.

IP: Logged

Jim Evans
Forum Contributor

Posts: 45
From:Union City, MI, USA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 19 September 2000 02:20 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jim Evans   Click Here to Email Jim Evans     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I am not trying to minimize the fault for Firestone, Ford, NHTSA as there is plenty of blame to go around and all appear to have serious quality related problems with product and systems. However, has it been determined just how fast these SUV's were going when the tire failures occured? Would these vehicles have rolled over (causing death) if they had been doing the speed limit? I drive to work on a road with a 55 mph speed limit and I normally use the cruise control set to that limit or just above the limit. I have been passed by various SUVs that have to be doing at least 15-20 mph faster than I am going. The same holds true on the freeway. I may be way off base with this line of thought but more than a few SUV owners that I know display a distinct feeling of invulnerability when driving thier vehicle.

Jim

IP: Logged

Ken K
Forum Contributor

Posts: 44
From:Wisconsin, USA
Registered: Jun 2000

posted 20 September 2000 12:00 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Ken K     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I beleive most of the tires that separated were rear tires. Ford also recommended a lower tire pressure than Firestone deemed safe. The reason: Ford Explorer's were prone to roll-over. Did the government know this? Highly doubtfull. Now that they will be releasing roll-over data, it will be interesting to see if the Explorer is on the list.

IP: Logged

Randy
Forum Wizard

Posts: 228
From:Barstow, CA, USA
Registered: Jun 1999

posted 20 September 2000 06:43 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randy   Click Here to Email Randy     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Quite honestly rollovers can happen with any tire/vehicle combination. I used to work rollovers by the ton as a cop (even had a couple myself). If the right (or wrong) conditions are met the laws of physics don't care what you are riding in or on.

I think the big issue here is....Did Ford and/or Firestone know of a potential problem and hide their heads in the sand hoping it would go away?

IP: Logged

Graeme C. Payne
unregistered
posted 29 September 2000 10:10 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by EyeSpy:
Andy

Mid-way through this article (Dated 1997) explains that Firestone could have been aware that belt/rubber "sepearation" was a possibility as long ago as the early 1970's
http://www.ohio.com/bj/projects/rubber/080397/lede.htm


You strike a memory chord! Sometime in the mid-1970's, Consumer's Union tested a bunch of passenger car tires for an article in "Consumer Reports" magazine. The headline event of the test was that, out of all the tires that went through identical tests, ALL of the "Firestone 500" tires experienced destructive failure!

"Those who fail to learn from history are condemmned to repeat it."

Graeme C. Payne
graeme1@bellsouth.net

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time (USA)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply Hop to:

Contact Us | The Elsmar Cove Home Page

Your Input Into These Forums Is Appreciated! Thanks!


Main Site Search
Y'All Come Back Now, Ya Hear?
Powered by FreeBSD!Made With A Mac!Powered by Apache!