Tire replacement

[Larry Blanchard]

This group's been pretty much non-existent over the winter. Maybe
this'll get some discussion going.

I recently bought a new tire that proved to be defective (extensive
sidewall cracks in about 2 months). The manufacturer, Dunlop, sent a new
tire at no cost, but would not pay for re-installation. At 75 I wasn't
about to do it myself.

So I called Dunlop and was told that the reasons for the non-
reimbursement policy were:

1. Some people install them themselves.

2. Some shops overcharge to install them.

I pointed out that even the DIY'er incurred the cost of lost time and
that a simple fixed amount, say $20, would solve the overcharging and
mollify the DIY'er. The response was along the lines of "That's above my
pay grade but I'll pass it along."

Seems a bit unfair that either the end user or the vendor should have to
pay for something that was Dunlop's mistake. Are all motorcycle tire
manufacturers like this?

Luckily my vendor is a good guy. I took the wheel off, which is easy on
my old SR500, and they did the replacement for free. So I'm out a
minimal amount of labor - they're out a bit more. But it still doesn't
seem fair.

[Mark Olson]

Post by Larry Blanchard
This group's been pretty much non-existent over the winter. Maybe
this'll get some discussion going.
I recently bought a new tire that proved to be defective (extensive
sidewall cracks in about 2 months). The manufacturer, Dunlop, sent a new
tire at no cost, but would not pay for re-installation. At 75 I wasn't
about to do it myself.
So I called Dunlop and was told that the reasons for the non-
1. Some people install them themselves.
2. Some shops overcharge to install them.
I pointed out that even the DIY'er incurred the cost of lost time and
that a simple fixed amount, say $20, would solve the overcharging and
mollify the DIY'er. The response was along the lines of "That's above my
pay grade but I'll pass it along."
Seems a bit unfair that either the end user or the vendor should have to
pay for something that was Dunlop's mistake. Are all motorcycle tire
manufacturers like this?
Luckily my vendor is a good guy. I took the wheel off, which is easy on
my old SR500, and they did the replacement for free. So I'm out a
minimal amount of labor - they're out a bit more. But it still doesn't
seem fair.

I'd guess that somewhere between 75 and 95 percent of all street
bike tires are not installed by the owner, so if they buy the
tire from a shop, the shop eats the labor and the customer isn't
out any cash, other than the inconvenience. I do all my own
mounting and balancing and I'd
probably be happy to get the tire replaced without quibbling and
I wouldn't ask for any compensation. If they gave me a hard time
about replacing an obviously defective tire, or it happened too
many times, then I'd be looking to a different manufacturer and
not looking back.

[Larry Blanchard]

I'd guess that somewhere between 75 and 95 percent of all street bike
tires are not installed by the owner, so if they buy the tire from a
shop, the shop eats the labor and the customer isn't out any cash, other
than the inconvenience.

And my point is that I don't think the shop should have to eat the labor
any more than I should.

[Mark Olson]

Post by Larry Blanchard

I'd guess that somewhere between 75 and 95 percent of all street bike
tires are not installed by the owner, so if they buy the tire from a
shop, the shop eats the labor and the customer isn't out any cash, other
than the inconvenience.

And my point is that I don't think the shop should have to eat the labor
any more than I should.

As it happens, I agree with you 100%. Obviously Dunlop has a different
view, yet shops are still buying their tires and putting them on customers'
bikes.

I suppose the point I was trying to make was that this sort of problem is
pretty rare and doesn't rise to the sort of situation where it is costing
Dunlop a lot of business. I would be interested in finding out if other
tire makers do reimburse for labor charges or not, I suspect not but I
don't know.

[Ian Field]

Post by Larry Blanchard
This group's been pretty much non-existent over the winter. Maybe
this'll get some discussion going.
I recently bought a new tire that proved to be defective (extensive
sidewall cracks in about 2 months). The manufacturer, Dunlop, sent a new
tire at no cost, but would not pay for re-installation. At 75 I wasn't
about to do it myself.
So I called Dunlop and was told that the reasons for the non-
1. Some people install them themselves.
2. Some shops overcharge to install them.
I pointed out that even the DIY'er incurred the cost of lost time and
that a simple fixed amount, say $20, would solve the overcharging and
mollify the DIY'er. The response was along the lines of "That's above my
pay grade but I'll pass it along."
Seems a bit unfair that either the end user or the vendor should have to
pay for something that was Dunlop's mistake. Are all motorcycle tire
manufacturers like this?
Luckily my vendor is a good guy. I took the wheel off, which is easy on
my old SR500, and they did the replacement for free. So I'm out a
minimal amount of labor - they're out a bit more. But it still doesn't
seem fair.

I'm obviously missing something here - why wouldn't you just return the
defective product to the dealer who supplied and fitted it and let them get
on with it?

When the jobs done they give you a call to come collect it and you probably
wouldn't have give a second thought to who pays labour costs.

Was that brand of tyre your idea or theirs? - Probably wouldn't be theirs if
that choice was in the habit of eroding their profits.

[Larry Blanchard]

Post by Ian Field
I'm obviously missing something here - why wouldn't you just return the
defective product to the dealer who supplied and fitted it and let them
get on with it?
When the jobs done they give you a call to come collect it and you
probably wouldn't have give a second thought to who pays labour costs.

I know I'm an old fart, but have the rules of ethics changed that much in
my lifetime? The dealer didn't manufacture the defective product - why
should replacing it cost him money? I didn't manufacture the tire either
so I shouldn't have to pay either.

What it boils down to is that the manufacturer is passing along the costs
of replacing a defective product when the manufacturer should be
responsible for those costs. That's unethical in my book.

[Mark Olson]

Post by Larry Blanchard

Post by Ian Field
I'm obviously missing something here - why wouldn't you just return the
defective product to the dealer who supplied and fitted it and let them
get on with it?
When the jobs done they give you a call to come collect it and you
probably wouldn't have give a second thought to who pays labour costs.

I know I'm an old fart, but have the rules of ethics changed that much in
my lifetime? The dealer didn't manufacture the defective product - why
should replacing it cost him money? I didn't manufacture the tire either
so I shouldn't have to pay either.
What it boils down to is that the manufacturer is passing along the costs
of replacing a defective product when the manufacturer should be
responsible for those costs. That's unethical in my book.

No, the dealer shouldn't have to bear the cost, but he is also free to
start a discussion with Dunlop re: getting a refund, after he has taken
care of you, his customer. It's one of the reasons why retailers charge
a reasonable markup on the goods they sell, after all.

If you bought a radio from a Target store, and it failed, would you get
in touch with Panasonic in Japan or would you take it back to Target?
Same thing, really, just a different product.

[Ian Field]

Post by Larry Blanchard

Post by Ian Field
I'm obviously missing something here - why wouldn't you just return the
defective product to the dealer who supplied and fitted it and let them
get on with it?
When the jobs done they give you a call to come collect it and you
probably wouldn't have give a second thought to who pays labour costs.

I know I'm an old fart, but have the rules of ethics changed that much in
my lifetime? The dealer didn't manufacture the defective product - why
should replacing it cost him money? I didn't manufacture the tire either
so I shouldn't have to pay either.
What it boils down to is that the manufacturer is passing along the costs
of replacing a defective product when the manufacturer should be
responsible for those costs. That's unethical in my book.

Pretty much its a case of any reputable dealer will regard it as "the cost
of doing business", and hope its a rare occurrence.

The dealer has also gone beyond the call of duty to treat you fairly, so you
will probably feel obligated to reward them with future custom in due
course..

I don't know where you are, or how consumer protection regs there compare to
the one's here, but its a common thing that manufacturers readily replace
defective parts without quibble - but let the cost of labour to fit it fall
on the retailer that sold the item.

This was certainly the case with warranty replacement CRTs in TVs - usually
a right PITA job too.