tireman9

Dayton is part of the Bridgestone/Firestone family. I believe Dayton truck tires are made in same plant with many of the same materials as used in other brands from the company. You can check HERE to see which plant made the tire. A few things to consider when selecting a tire brand: Where can you get the tire serviced or have Warranty work done? Does the company offer or include any road-side assistance? How big is their dealer network? Will you be able to get service near-by or will you have to return to the store that sold you the tires originally?

A general comment on Truck vs RV tires from a Tire Development Engineer. If we stay with the same size and Load Range, some tires may have some extra anti-ozone chemicals built into the sidewall but I am not aware of any meaningful structural difference other than advertised differences such as tread depth and pattern, both of which can affect ride & handling as well as long term durability and fuel economy. If you read the materials listed on the sidewall you will see that most tires for Class-A have one body ply of steel. The tread area may have three or four steel belts but usually the difference here is also related to expected usage which also involved different tread depth and tread pattern. Given that most tires on RV "age out" rather than "wear out" I would probably shop around for the tire with the shallowest tread as that would in all likelihood also give best fuel economy as well as be of lower cost with the possibility of better ride too. When you are inflating a tire to 100psi there is not too big of a difference in ride between tires when you do controlled back to back tire evaluations which in the real world probably no one here has ever done unless they have worked as a tire development engineer for one of the big tire manufacturers or a big car manufacturer. This type of testing involves running at identical loads & speeds over a specific set of road conditions with no traffic to hinder the test. When you get to the fine points there is no radio playing and the AC is off and all windows are closed so noise is not masked either. While an experienced & trained evaluation engineer might be able to feel a minor difference, most times the difference is well below the sensory threshold of 98% of every day drivers. Switching from shallow tread 6 year old tires to new tires is apples to oranges comparison as tread depth alone will vastly overshadow any possible construction difference.

I agree with Brett and have more extensive info on Nitrogen in my Blog

Haven't heard of any RV going that route. SIGNIFICANT up-front costs associated with buying the new wheels. Weight savings is only of real concern to truckers who are weight limited by most state laws. Fuel economy is probably improved but you will need lots of miles to offset the up front costs. Do you drive 50 - 100k a year? If so it might work out otherwise I doubt it. Note I worked designing "Wide Base" singles many years ago and there are savings to be had at the OE level where the cost of the special wheels and special tires is partially of-set by savings in the cost of 4 standatd wheels and 4 standard tires. but if doing a changeover you don't get thatat savings.

John No reason to be confused. What size are you currently running? ( Note to anyone reading this post. It ALWAYS is a good idea to include the current size and type and load range of the tires you currently are running when you start a thread on tire replacement)

Well so far I have received one PM with actual corner loads. Since I am presenting a seminar "Tire Basics for RV Owner" at Madison, WI Convention, I would really like some data from FMCA members and not have to depend on the other club members to provide actual data. I am sure there must be a few here who have had their coach weighed by RVSEF at a convention sometime.

Gary, FYI To my knowledge with the exception of a few passenger size tires going to OE with volumes exceeding aprox 10,000 a month, all tires are batch made, no matter the company. I have heard of similar supply issues with some Bridgestone, Goodyear and some Firestone items so this situation is not unique to Michelin.

John if you look at the Michelin listing you can then look at all the Micheline tires. If you click on the left ALL TIRES you will see the full list X XZ XZU XZY3 XCA XPS XRV XS XTE2 (wb) XZA XZA-1+ XZA1 XZA2 ENERGY XZA3 XZA3 ANTISPLASH XZA4 XZE XZE 2 XZE* XZE2+ XZL XZL (wb) XZU XZU wb XZU2 XZU3 XZY XZY3 XZY3 (wb) XD XDA XDA ENERGY XDN2 XRV XD2 XD4 XDA ENERGY XDA2+ ENERGY XDA3 XDA5 XDE M/S XDE M/S* XDE2+ XDL XDN2 XDN2 GRIP XDS XDS2 XDS2 (11R) XDY-2 XDY-EX XDY3 XPS TRAC X One XTA X One XTE X One XTE* XT-1 XTA XTA ENERGY XTA2 ENERGY XTA2 ENERGY (wb) XTE XTE2 XTY2 NOTE I have nothing to do with Michelin design nomenclature so don't blame me it they are a bit confusing. Looking at the XZE2 we see MI claims Enhanced application-specific compound to help promote resistance to aggressions and longer tread life. 6% wider tread for improved wear and handling (when compared to Michelin® XZE® tire). Matrix™ and micros sipes protect against irregular wear.™ Zig-zag grooves and sipes help increase traction in new and worn tire conditions. North American design. Approved for use on EPA SmartWaySM certified equipment and meets California's CARB requirements Sizes 11R22.5 11R22.5 275/80R22.5 11R24.5 11R24.5 275/80R24.5 Looking at the XZE2+ we see MI claims Outstanding resistance to high scrub applications from large solid shoulder. Exceptional traction throughout life of tire promoted from full-depth sipes in center ribs. Lower downtime and protection from bruises and penetrations fostered by full-width protector ply over the working plies. Improved resistance to curbing and sidewall scrub from raised curb guard feature Sizes 265/70R19.5 285/70R19.5 275/70R22.5 295/80R22.5 Now I am a bit confused why you are looking at these two lines when according to Michelin specifications they do not share a common size. But to be specific yes there is a major difference between these two lines. Size.

The XZE2+ and XZA are clearly not the same thing. Tread pattern, Tread depth are just two of the obvious differences. As long as you have decided on Michelin and not one of the other brands, I would be inclined to go with the one Michelin suggests for RV usage

Initially I just wired to the back-up light to test the system. Since I have a C and can see out the back window (have one of those special flat lens things) plus good rearview mirrors, having the distraction of a small monitor while driving isn't needed.

You didn't say if you were dealing with Michelin company owned store or independent dealer selling Michelin tires. The dealers may each have a reason to push one type over the other. I prefer to look at the corporate spec sheets as this is reviewed by Mich Engineers and represents the design intent of the tire. Looking at the MI spec sheet http://www.michelintruck.com/michelintruck...o.do?tread=XZA2 ENERGY I note the "Energy" tag for improved fuel economy and that Michelin suggests this tire for RV application http://www.michelintruck.com/michelintruck...o?tread=XZE2%2B Michelin does not clearly ID this design for RV application and no mention of better than normal fuel economy You didn't mention your size or Load Rating so you will need to look at the details.

I see back-up camera systems for RVs advertised for $300 to $1600. I have a Class-C and installed a Peak/Wireless back-up camera system with 2.4 in. LCD monitor for $80. It turns on whenever I shift to reverse and is wireless to the driver seat area. Not as big a screen as the thousand dollar units but it works for me. You can check the auto parts web sites to locate a store near you that has the unit. Now if you want the camera on full time you will need to run 12v power to the back of your RV but if you are only concerned when backing up this unit works just fine.

RJ I do not recommend mixing brands in a dual application even if the size is listed as the same there will be different deflection characteristics that result in one carrying more than it's mate. Since you have a GY and the rest are BS I strongly suggest you run the GY on a Front position or if you have a Tag axle with just single tires on each side that would be OK also. RE Riverwear. Can't comment on one brand tendency or not to develop this condition or not. It is a form of localized wear that goes around the tire but not side to side. Kind of meanders a bit. Lets see if this link works.

Wayne If you can't get actual corner weights then your approach would seem to be the best you can do. If your wear is OK then you are probably not too far off. You might touch base with RVSEF and ask what their schedule is. Never know if one of their guys will be traveling near where you expect to be. The only other option is to keep an eye out for a truck scale that has enough level space to allow you to do the multiple weigh that would allow you to calculate the individual corners. I have seen scales with enough side clearance to allow this. You first get the full axle weight then drive through again with one side on the scale and one side off then do the math. Hopefully there are some FMCA members who have had the corners weighed and are willing to share the data here. So far not so much.

Bill My goal is to develop statistical analysis to allow me to make a suggested adjustment for estimated load when individual corner weights are not known. I note that many folk do not know their actual corner loads and are unlikely to ge them as they do not attend large Rallies and Conventions where RVSEF or similar organizations offer the weighing service. However everyone can get to a truck scale and at least know their axle load. I am expecting to be able to say something like... If you do not know your side to side loads but only your axle load then If you estimate a 50/50 load split you have a xx% probability of overloading one of your tires by yy% If you estimate a 45/55 load split then.... and if you estimate a 40/60 load split then .... Initial data suggests that if you estimate at a 45/55 split and then inflate all tires based on the 55% load when using the tables you have a 25% chance of still having one tire overloaded. Note the 25% figure is NOT based on a detailed analysis of the data but is provided here as an example based simply on eye-ball look at limited date. To make the data analysis more reliable I need at least 25 more coach weights in Class-A plus 30 in Class-C. On another forum I am also attempting to address the question of side to side and axle to axle variation for 5th wheel trailers. Note I already have confirmed unbalance at more than 10% level for two Motorhomes out of 27 and confirmed unbalance axle to axle of more than 60% of 5th wheels in addition to side to side unbalance at about three times the rate found in Motorhomes. This preliminary data clearly supports the need for developing reliable prediction statistics to encourage more people to get their real corner loads or at a minimum to stop estimation on equal distribution. The above is a strong smoking gun for the probable root cause for the 18% tire failure rate seen in RV applications. I find it interesting that FMCA people seem to feel this is not something they need to worry about.

dbik86i Before you can increase the load capacity you will need to increase the inflation. Your wheels may not be rated for the higher inflation. They should be marked with a statement of max load and max inflation. It also sounds like you are assuming your tire failure was due to overload and not some other cause such as impact or puncture. Did you have the failed tire inspected by a Company Store, not an independent tire dealer? Did you ask for an adjustment from the Manufacturer? Manufacturers will only accept or turn down an adjustment AFTER an experienced engineer does a complete inspection. Note I said Engineer and not just a tire tech. I also wonder if the new G rated tire is a good match based on actual size of it's companion dual. If you had much more than 5,000 miles then there is a chance the worn F rated tire is smaller so you are asking the G rated tire to carry more load but probably don't have increased inflation for the increased load. If you have to I would suggest you move the fronts to the rear dual positions and put the mixed load tires F & G on the front to avoid the potential dual lading issue.

The picture posted by Wayne is classical "Zipper" failure. Wolfe is spot on with the fatigue flex due to running low with steel sidewalls. While a stone caught between the duals can cause tires to fail there will be significant localized abrasion of both sidewalls where the tires held the stone. I also doubt that you could manage to abrade through both tires at the same time so one would almost certainly loose air first, leaving the companion damages but still holding air. Note to all... Including pictures ( in focus and close up if possible) as Wayne did will help those with tire inspection knowledge provide more accurate analysis allowing more likely information on the probable Root Cause of the failure. Verbal descriptions from non-tire engineers are seldom sufficient as tire engineers have a vocabulary we use when discussing tire conditions.

dbik86i Sorry to hear about your problems. If you don't mind, let me add a few observations based on 40 years as Tire Design & Quality engineer and Tire Inspection Specialist with about 15,000 "autopsies" under my belt. You didn't say if the "service co" was a Goodyear company store or independent dealer that happened to sell that brand. Very few if any tire techs get training in tire failure analysis. It's not their job as tire manufacturers have engineers specifically trained to do basic tire inspections to make a call on warranty replacements. The info about matching OD is spot on. I suspect that trying to match a tire with >5,000 mi with a new one might not be a good idea so all things being the same I would move your two fronts to the dual location and "mix" new & worn on the front axle. Finding no dimensional difference between LR-F and LR-G is rather normal as manufacturers normally will use the same mold and make internal structural differences between the two load range tires. I doubt that you will be able to feel any ride difference between a F and G tire if both inflated to same psi. Your additional info on discovering the inner tire with no air is very telling. This means it was probably run some unknown number of miles doing permanent internal structural damage. The damage weakened the tire and that is why it blew. Duals with one tire at 15 psi "Zipper" failure of steel body tire Glad you were not injured. Clearly with the TPMS showing all OK there is a problem with that system and I strongly suggest you get it checked out ASAP. I am also concerned about the tire that was mounted next to the dual that blew. Not knowing if or how much usage at 100% overload it was exposed to it is very suspect. I urge you to have a GY COMPANY STORE dismount it and do a complete internal inspection. Tell the store manager exactly what happened to both tires. Good luck

RVSEF data is not for sale. It is "owned" by the major sponsors of the Foundation. I understand the likelihood of loads changing over time but since I am doing statistical sampling that should be no problem. So far I have some answers from non FMCA folk.

As a tire engineer I am interested in developing some statistics on the actual load on RV tires. I have found a number of posts with axle weights but I know that very few vehicles have a 50/50 side to side load. If you have had your rig weighed with individual scales for each position I would appreciate knowing the results. I don't need info on the make or model RV or even the size tire as I am only interested in learning how much out of balance different type RVs are. Your post or PM me with this basic info Example TYPE ( Class-C or Class-A) RF - 3212# LF - 3810# RR - 8111# LR - 9100# If you have a Tag please include RT - 3210# LT - 3222# Thanks in advance for your assistance.

Well I don't have all the info needed to be sure, but if you are running 8% low and your normal heat gain is 40 degrees above ambient you might see enough pressure growth to get to your normal tire pressure but at the expense of running the tires hotter than they would normally run. As we all know heat is the killer of tires and the more hours you spend running your tires hotter than normal the more tire life you are using up. Now if you know that 90psi is the minimum required to carry your load based on actual weights on each corner then it's no big deal. That's why you are inflating your tires to Minimum + 5 psi, to allow for day to day temperature variations. If 95 cold is what is the MINIMUM required to carry your load you are in fact running your tires overloaded. Not a lot but overloaded none the less. Damage to tires is cumulative. Putting air back in a tire you operated while overloaded/underinflated does not "fix" the damage you have done any more than putting the burnt hot dog back in the fridge "fix" the burnt dog. Now a couple of hundred miles at 3 psi low is not going to fail a tire BUT you are still doing damage and there is no clear answer as to how many miles you can run a tire X psi low before it fails.

OK, I have been informed my post was useless. How about if you see which system that you can afford has the greatest number of features than are in my list?

Both tires on dual application usually means one had a slow leak which resulted in the mate being overloaded. Three pieces is give away of what is called a Run Low Flex failure. The picture in the start of this thread is sometimes called a"zipper" failure when the steel sidewall ply does exactly what Brett described. The steel flexes too much, much like a paper clip. Have you confirmed your TPMS reads correct pressure and that they do go to alarm when you get to the low level? Sounds like a nice afternoon project when you have access to air to re-inflate each tire. Going down to 75 while not driving is not a problem. I would not trust a visual inspection to see low tire.

Sorry Bill but not just my "personal speculation" but based on 40 years of extensive work with tire compound chemists and research scientists in the tire industry. I have seen data on cross link density which is a good predictor of rubber properties and ultimate tire performance and durability. The math does hold up as I personally did an experiment on "cure equivalents" which took 35 years to complete as time is one thing we can't accelerate in the lab. Link was just to give simple background info. Actual cross-link density numbers for individual compounds are proprietery unless you want to spend the $$$$ to have an analysis done.

Unbeleavable, A manufacturer knowingly selling units with design & manufacturing defects. You should send a request for compensation for all your out of pocket to Spartan & Newmar. If they don't pay up then send request for help to RV magaxines and name names. Isn't the RV industry just wonderful!