Tirewack

[Pooters]

SO! I was replacing the two rear tires on my ZHP last Friday and after mounting and driving home I noticed a knot on the sidewall/tread front. Oh well, no biggy I just got a bummed tire, I'll just contact Tirerack.com and get a exchange! DEAD WRONG. They are now refusing to exchange the tire and are now saying that I did the damage because the inside of the tire had a 1 inch slit in it... like I hit a massive bump or something. If I did hit a bump I would just cut my losses and buy a new tire, but i didn't. Christ, for me to hit a bump that caused that much damage to that tire it probably would have ripped out my entire rear end (the cars, not mine).
They say that it's the manufactures exclusion, not theirs. Well, if I go buy a tool from Home Depot and it breaks the next day they gladly accept exchanges... BECAUSE THEY BACK THEIR PRODUCTS.
Use caution when buying from these sleaze dogs.
I hope they enjoy having this horrible review slung up on every car forum that I'm a part of.

[M0nk3y]

Anyways, because you drove on the tire, you're at fault. That's how they see it in their eyes.

My friend (local here). Bought V12s from tirerack. Went to go get them balanced and 1 tire didn't want to balance. Contacted tirerack directly at the shop and explained them what was going on. Sent a new tire to the shop overnight.

I myself have had no issues with them at all

[Pooters]

Anyways, because you drove on the tire, you're at fault. That's how they see it in their eyes.

My friend (local here). Bought V12s from tirerack. Went to go get them balanced and 1 tire didn't want to balance. Contacted tirerack directly at the shop and explained them what was going on. Sent a new tire to the shop overnight.

I myself have had no issues with them at all

Still isn't right. They're not backing their products.

Oh and the tires are Dunlop DZ101's
*Edit* and I'm pretty positive that I could have mailed them the tire and they wouldn't have been able to tell I drove on them.. seeing how I'm 3 minutes away from the shop.

[M0nk3y]

Still isn't right. They're not backing their products.

Oh and the tires are Dunlop DZ101's
*Edit* and I'm pretty positive that I could have mailed them the tires and they wouldn't have been able to tell I drove on them.. seeing how I'm 3 minutes away from the shop.

I ordered V12s for my CSLs (not through Tirerack). But I got sent V4s instead. I mounted them and drove on them.

Took me a week to realize (since the tread is almost identical), but I can't go back and blame it on them...It's my fault for not realizing it from the gecko.

Either way, I bet you told them you drove on the car for a week. With that being said, you lost the argument. Even if you are 3 minutes away...there "could" be pot-holes on that trip.

You have to look it at from that end. You had the tires for a week. 3 minutes to and from work...say 3 miles. That's 15 miles + weekend driving. So I'll just put it at 20 miles for the sake of rounding. The chances of you damaging the tire are slim...but tirerack takes that week of driving into consideration.

Did you tell them your work is 3 minutes down the road, or did you tell them you drove the car for a week?

[Marcus-SanDiego]

Kyle, come on, brother. You know better. Please review the rules on spelling and grammar police: http://www.zhpmafia.com/forums/showthread.php?515-Why-is-there-crack-on-my-face&p=8600#post8600

I've edited your spelling correction comment.

[Oli77]

Don't think it is just Tirewack. I just bought a tire on Craiglist with a bulge so I started looking into it. Between pothole stories and people mounting runflats on non-approved machines, it seems tire walls are getting destroyed.

In each case though, from the stories I have read, it appears the customer loses. Unless you see the bulge in the parking lot of the tire shop.

I guess when it comes to buying tires on the internet, what recourse do you have? They'll say it was mounted on a wrong machine or you drove in a pothole.

[Pooters]

I ordered V12s for my CSLs (not through Tirerack). But I got sent V4s instead. I mounted them and drove on them.

Took me a week to realize (since the tread is almost identical), but I can't go back and blame it on them...It's my fault for not realizing it from the gecko.

Either way, I bet you told them you drove on the car for a week. With that being said, you lost the argument. Even if you are 3 minutes away...there "could" be pot-holes on that trip.

You have to look it at from that end. You had the tires for a week. 3 minutes to and from work...say 3 miles. That's 15 miles + weekend driving. So I'll just put it at 20 miles for the sake of rounding. The chances of you damaging the tire are slim...but tirerack takes that week of driving into consideration.

Did you tell them your work is 3 minutes down the road, or did you tell them you drove the car for a week?

Jumping to conclusions or are you a failed mind reader? I called Tirerack and said "I mounted the tires drive home from the shop, which is 3-5 minutes from my house".
Are you always such an ass or is just to the petty ZHP drivers? And please go back and reread my entire post. Including the part where I talk about for me to hit a pothole to do that much damage to the tire my entire rearend would be in the street.

[Oli77]

http://www.alternativeconsumer.com/wp-content/uploads/02011/01/all%20good%20goop_1.jpg

[danewilson77]

You guys...keep it civil or the thread will be closed.

Closed thread until all can stay on topic. You guys know better.

HTC Thunderbolt+TT

[Marcus-SanDiego]

Quick note: if someone would like to discuss this thread, feel free to hit us up on PM.

[danewilson77]

Thread unlocked.

[Oli77]

Did you have to buy another tire Pooter?

[Washburn]

I have bought tires from Tire Rack 5 times, and one time had an out-of-round tire - called them, and had a new tire delivered to the installer next day - no questions asked. GREAT customer service, IMO!
What the OP demanding is um, not fair at all, IMO.
TR response is fully understandable, and correct.

[Marcus-SanDiego]

I want to understand some of the responses in this thread.

Are you guys, who do not agree with Pooters, saying that he should not have driven on the tire? In other words, he should have caught the problem before mounting the tires and then immediately called Tirerack.com?

But because he drove it home first, and then noticed the problem, Tirerack's response is acceptable?

I'm an issues guy. Please explain why there seems to be some resistance to Pooter's situation.

Thanks, guys.

[Oli77]

I think your analysis of the comments is correct boss.

The shop that mounted his tires should have mentioned to defect to him though.

From what I have read, if you drive at all, the tire reseller will almost always claim pothole or inappropriate mounting device (in case of runflats).

[Marcus-SanDiego]

Great. At least I think I understand the issues now.

In sum: Pooters drove the car and did not notice the defect. The installer should have noticed.

Pooters noticed the tire defect after putting a few miles on them.

Pooters calls tirerack.com.

Tirerack.com says that, sorry, you've already driven on these. We have no idea whether it was a defect or the customer damaged the tire. If you had not driven the car, we would gladly take the tire back. Since you've driven on them, it's our policy to deny the claim.

My conclusion: I generally agree with tirerack.com's policy. I could see tirerack getting jammed up by dishonest people. However, I feel bad for Pooters in this situation because he isn't one of those scammers. Indeed, a policy like this will snare some innocent people every now and then.

Thanks, guys.