Guest Fred Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 What are the last few posts to do with moving mains socket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Brian Kirby Posted December 3, 2005 Share Posted December 3, 2005 Its just like good conversation, Fred, it goes where it will! The socket moving issue was resolved way back. This was much more serious, about someone's incompetence nearly causing Ralph a very nasty accident. Surely one shouldn't say it can't be entertained because it strays from the point. After all, there was a linkage. Because of the bad tyre fitted, and the ensuing blow out, the motorhome wiring was damaged. Because of the damaged wiring Ralph got a shock. That led him to reccommend that wiring under the vehicle between mains intake point and mains switch was poor practice. Then we got down to his tyre! Take it easy Brian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek Uzzell Posted December 3, 2005 Share Posted December 3, 2005 I've not read anything here that definitely points to "someone's incompetence". Ralph has not suggested that the new tyres fitted to his motorhome were unsuitable for it and, if they matched the originals, there's no reason to assume unsuitability. The inflation pressure he quoted doesn't seem controversial and the vehicle wasn't heavily loaded. One of the new tyres failed catastrophically and the other was on the way out, so the UK tyre fitting company's educated guess of a 'manufacturing fault' seems logical. If the tyres were indeed faulty there's no way the fitting company would know. Damage from foreign bodies is an alternative possibility that should not be discounted (my neighbour had two tyres explode on a motorway journey because of this), but, as the failed tyres are unavailable for inspection, it will be impossible to carry out an autopsy. I agree with Brian though that the matter should be taken up strongly with Michelin, not least because, if there is a faulty batch of tyres out there, they need to know about it ASAP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ralph Posted December 3, 2005 Share Posted December 3, 2005 Brian Derek I hesitate to post, as it is obviously now off topic and clearly some find that offensive, I apologise but my origional intention was that I felt Graham may have been ill advised to seperate his Inlet from his RCD and explained my reasons for this, which developed. So just to say this is being refferred to Michelin and when I know more I will post in a new thread so not to upset others. Sorry! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Brian Kirby Posted December 4, 2005 Share Posted December 4, 2005 Yes, yes. I know, I know. No more! Its just that Ralph said his tyres were new, had only 200 miles under them, and were (so far as he knew) undamaged. If the load was, as Ralph says, within limits, the speed not excessive, and the pressures seem reasonable, no blow out should have resulted. Even in the event of one failure, the other tyre should not have been showing signs of acute distress. In fact the reverse was the case, one suffered catastrophic failure and the other seems to have been well on its way. Ralph's description of the tyres post failure is, broadly, indicative of overheating. Overheating can be caused by (generally) excess speed, overload, too high/low (mainly the latter) pressure or, of course, faulty construction. However, most of these factors do seem to be discounted by the facts as we know them. My allusion to someones incompetence may well prove to have been a bit hasty: I didn't infer whose, and used the word as shorthand instead of listing all the other possibilities. However, the point is taken. We shall have to see what the good Ralph is able to tell us of his eventual response from michelin. However, in the meantime: a) there is only one Michelin recall registered with VOSA within the past 10 years. This is for a tyre that Michelin don't currently seem to make, a 235/70 tyre, that would not seem appropriate to Ralph's Autostratus. b) Ralph's Autostratus, it seems, should have 195/70/15 104R tyres. This tyre/rating is suitable for 105 MPH and 900 Kg per wheel/1800 Kg per axle. Michelin Agilis is available in the size/rating. However, the Agilis is also made in 195/70/15 100R rating. This is also suitable to 105 MPH but only at 800 Kg per tyre/1600 Kg per axle. Now, the Autostratus is quite a big van with quite a large rear overhang, so I would guess the rear axle normally runs near its max permissible load. I know this is pure conjecture, but the (apparently) badly overheating rear tyres suggests to me that the 100Rs may have been fitted instead of the 104Rs, and were thus overloaded. Same tyre, same size, and only a small, and not very noticeable, difference in the sidewall codes. Whether, and how/why this may have happened, I'm hoping Ralph will tell us in due course. I just have a feeling that the answer, if he can get one, may be of interest to us all! With humble apologies and kindest regards Brian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.