Welcome to Just Commodores, a site specifically designed for all people who share the same passion as yourself.

New Posts Contact us

Just Commodores Forum Community

It takes just a moment to join our fantastic community

Register

wheel balancing and road force test

Skylarking

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Messages
9,995
Reaction score
10,324
Points
113
Age
123
Location
Downunder
Members Ride
Commodore Motorsport Edition
While I appreciate your explanation Skylarking, I don't think Holden will replace anything. Even though there is a vibration, even if Holden and Bridgestone acknowledge it, it will come back to it being acceptable limits by Bridgestone. That is there "out" card.
This vibration is not shaking lose my fillings, I doubt that a passenger could feel it.
Yes they could put on tyres that were less than the 10.5kg mine are out, but I I could end up with ones that are more than I have as well that are still within manufacturers limits and possibly a worse vibration

Australian consumer guarantees have way more fine print associated with them than you find on the fair trading website.

And even though you may think it falls within its guidelines, the matter is adjudicated by someone who is no more than a registrar or representative.

At the end of the day, the tyre does do what it is intended to do. It gives the car something to roll on. Is the car undrivable as a result? No. Does the manufacturer deem the tyre to be faulty? No is it within their acceptable limits? Yes.

I accept that it's an issue to me because I can feel it in the steering wheel at certain speeds. Probably because I'm a fussy bugger and I know my cars well.
Probably half or 3/4 of the people in here could feel it as well and would not be happy.
But the majority of Joe Blo's out there in their Hyundais and micras probably wouldn't even notice.

Just because there is something that you or I are not happy with, because we have a higher standard than those drivers, doesn't not mean those consumer guarantees will get our matter sorted. While you always quote the Accc and the acl, how many times have you actually had a retailer go to tribunal and lose because of your argument. It's not as easy as you think. I know, I've been through it and won but it was no walk in the park and that fault with my faulty item was was way more serious than this on.
Your initial post could be interpreted as a problem anyone could feel and thus would any normal person would consider as faulty. Now it seems to be something only the OCD among us would pick up SO it would have been good if you stated this within your first post.

As for ACL, read it, i have - no small print, just typical legalese but not difficult to follow or understand.

And as for my tribunal endeavors, when i've had issues i've always resolved them with the selling business or manufacturer (other than couple of instances when i was much younger and didn't understand the law).

These days the retailers and manufacturers are quite receptive to their ACL obligations and will thus see sense and avoid dragging out the inevitable when reasonable arguments are put to them. Obviously some vibrations only felt by those OCD types will not get far.

As i've said before, do what you please. Do understand the law and make your choice based on you pain threshold, as whatever you do, some pain is usually involved. Oh, and don't simply accept that all companies processes follow the law - many don't as is evident by the large number of ACCC undertakings made over the last few year and of the few large fines given (Ford being just one).
 

vc commodore

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2014
Messages
10,651
Reaction score
12,331
Points
113
Location
Like the Leyland Brothers
Members Ride
VC, VH and VY
Your initial post could be interpreted as a problem anyone could feel and thus would any normal person would consider as faulty. Now it seems to be something only the OCD among us would pick up SO it would have been good if you stated this within your first post.

.


Seems quite plain, he did state the exact problem in the first post.....I will post up the section, which outlines it quite clearly

I've had a vibration in my car since i got it.

Initially I put it down to bad balancing and lived with it. I had the last tyre place try 3 times to get the vibration out.

Today I tried another tyre place and they did the regular balancing and a road force balance as well. Road force is where they apply load to the tyre and spin it to determine the best place on the rim for the tyre.

The test found out that two tyres which are on the front surprise, surprise, were out so much that they could not get a proper balance hence the vibration. The tyre guy told me they have had that before and they have had sent tyres back (goodyear/dunlop) because they were so far out.


Now you understand why I mentioned, it was a Bridgestone problem and all your carry on about ACCC etc etc was uncalled for
 

Skylarking

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Messages
9,995
Reaction score
10,324
Points
113
Age
123
Location
Downunder
Members Ride
Commodore Motorsport Edition
So in other words, if I buy a car from sky's shoddy shack and the tyres have an issue like this, it's upto Sky's shoddy shack to replace them.

Keep blowing hot air out....The issue is a minor tyre issue, not a major issue, where someones life is in jeopardy..What I have outlined is the course of action, which seems to be the action the OP is taking
I've answered such a question before and you re ask it in an insulting way. I'd suggest you stop being a childish and do some research.

The way the law works can be odd but it's the selling business that has the primary liability with respect to ACL. Businesses must not missrepresent the products they sell and they must not sell faulty products. A business must provide a remedy for a faulty product. ACL defines faults as being minor and oddly enough not minor (which most call major fault for simplicity). With a minor fault, the selling business can choose from a selection of defined remedies (repair, exchange, refund) but with a major fault it is the purchasor choice (of refund, exchange, repair). As such, a fault does not need to rise to the level of being life threatening situation before a business must provide a remedy under ACL.

It seems many years of working with tyres and your suppliers process has made you blind to simple legal principles.

It may be worth you reading the ACL rather than thinking Bridgestone and their internal process are the be all and end all of the law.
 

Skylarking

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Messages
9,995
Reaction score
10,324
Points
113
Age
123
Location
Downunder
Members Ride
Commodore Motorsport Edition
Seems quite plain, he did state the exact problem in the first post.....I will post up the section, which outlines it quite clearly

I've had a vibration in my car since i got it.

Initially I put it down to bad balancing and lived with it. I had the last tyre place try 3 times to get the vibration out.

Today I tried another tyre place and they did the regular balancing and a road force balance as well. Road force is where they apply load to the tyre and spin it to determine the best place on the rim for the tyre.

The test found out that two tyres which are on the front surprise, surprise, were out so much that they could not get a proper balance hence the vibration. The tyre guy told me they have had that before and they have had sent tyres back (goodyear/dunlop) because they were so far out.


Now you understand why I mentioned, it was a Bridgestone problem and all your carry on about ACCC etc etc was uncalled for
So where does the initial post state anything akin to the below statement?
...This vibration is not shaking lose my fillings, I doubt that a passenger could feel it....
 

VS 5.0

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2006
Messages
7,980
Reaction score
14,099
Points
113
Location
Perth WA
Members Ride
VE SSV Z Series M6
@vc commodore , everything that @Skylarking is saying is correct.

The onus of compliance with the ACL rests with the seller of new goods. In this instance, as the tyres are part & parcel of the new goods (a motor vehicle) they are responsible for the defect in those goods as they sold the goods.

Just as Holden are responsible for the faulty electric steering racks, rocker arms and fuel injectors on VF even though they didn't manufacture those components.

Any issues Holden may have with a supplier to them is of no concern to the purchaser, irrespective of what "normal industry practice" may be involved and is purely a matter for Holden and the supplier to work through.
 

abuch47

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2018
Messages
1,035
Reaction score
289
Points
83
Location
Madelaide
Members Ride
LSS3 YOOTE
Your both right and each are avenues to fix as both 'suppliers' have to stand by their products. Surely let it rest.
 

Skylarking

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Messages
9,995
Reaction score
10,324
Points
113
Age
123
Location
Downunder
Members Ride
Commodore Motorsport Edition
Your both right and each are avenues to fix as both 'suppliers' have to stand by their products. Surely let it rest.
A seller of a product handballing an issue to a manufacturer has landed many businesses in trouble with ACCC because the following statement is simply wrong in law.
Holden only bought the tyres....The claim will be with Bridgestone, as they are the manufacturer....
It is also wrong in law for a seller to require the cause of a fault to be confirmed as a manufacturing issue before a remedy must be provided under ACL. The law only requires that the fault be confirmed by the seller (in this case they go for a drive and confirm the wheels vibrate when driving dispite being balanced) and for the fault to be classified as minor/not minor before a remedy must be provided (such is obviously minor so buyer doesnt get to choose the remedy). The kicker is that as part of an ACL remedy, the buyer can include a claim for consequential loss (the $ spend tying to balance the faulty tyre).

All such processes that businesses put in place to require a suppliers input in managing the fault are only to simplify their ability to claw back $ from that supplier. Such requirements can not be forced on the buyer as part of their ACL claim towards the seller. So the following statement is also wrong in law.
This is a case where a representative of Bridgestone will have to look at the tyre/s and make a determination whether it is a manufacturing fault or not.....
I have no doubt that the industry behaves as @vc commodore has stated, and that in many cases it may be simpler to deal with the tyre manufacturer directly as they do have a buisiness interest to ensure the public view their product in a good way (but such is not driven by law). However, there may be a cost in going directly to the tyre manufacturer.

The tyre manufacturer may discount the used tread on a prorata basis so the buyer pays a portion of new tyre costs (it's against the ACL to discount a remedy in such a way). And the tyre manufactrurer is not obligued to consider consequential loss (though they may do so to preserve their market standing but they are not obligued to consider such by law).

So yes, he is somewhat correct in that it may be easier to go to the manufacturer directly though there may be a cost in doing such. However this doesn't take away from the fact that many of his statements are simply wrong in law and rather than understand and accept such facts, he insults.

In any case i hope it works out for @KING46Calais V and he lets us know of the results of his dealings with Bridgestone.
 

KING46Calais V

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
720
Reaction score
489
Points
63
Location
Sydney
Members Ride
2017 VFII Calais V 6.2L Sed
A seller of a product handballing an issue to a manufacturer has landed many businesses in trouble with ACCC because the following statement is simply wrong in law.It is also wrong in law for a seller to require the cause of a fault to be confirmed as a manufacturing issue before a remedy must be provided under ACL. The law only requires that the fault be confirmed by the seller (in this case they go for a drive and confirm the wheels vibrate when driving dispite being balanced) and for the fault to be classified as minor/not minor before a remedy must be provided (such is obviously minor so buyer doesnt get to choose the remedy). The kicker is that as part of an ACL remedy, the buyer can include a claim for consequential loss (the $ spend tying to balance the faulty tyre).

All such processes that businesses put in place to require a suppliers input in managing the fault are only to simplify their ability to claw back $ from that supplier. Such requirements can not be forced on the buyer as part of their ACL claim towards the seller. So the following statement is also wrong in law.I have no doubt that the industry behaves as @vc commodore has stated, and that in many cases it may be simpler to deal with the tyre manufacturer directly as they do have a buisiness interest to ensure the public view their product in a good way (but such is not driven by law). However, there may be a cost in going directly to the tyre manufacturer.

The tyre manufacturer may discount the used tread on a prorata basis so the buyer pays a portion of new tyre costs (it's against the ACL to discount a remedy in such a way). And the tyre manufactrurer is not obligued to consider consequential loss (though they may do so to preserve their market standing but they are not obligued to consider such by law).

So yes, he is somewhat correct in that it may be easier to go to the manufacturer directly though there may be a cost in doing such. However this doesn't take away from the fact that many of his statements are simply wrong in law and rather than understand and accept such facts, he insults.

In any case i hope it works out for @KING46Calais V and he lets us know of the results of his dealings with Bridgestone.
I will definately keep you all informed.
Just a question sky, If I were to take it to Holden, don't you think they would just refer the problem to Bridgestone anyway. Not me, but get their own info from Bridgestone. If Bridgestone were to say that the tyre is within Bridgestone specifications, I am pretty sure that would be the end of it. Just because the consumer thinks there is a fault, doesn't mean there is one. So how would it be covered by the ACL?
Otherwise every unhappy customer for what ever little problem would be taking vendors to tribunal every second.

The engines in our cars shake and vibrate as well but some vibe would he expected.
I just think that Bridgestone are saying, they can't make a perfectly round tyre so some vibration will happen.
The fact is how would you ever prove the range set by Bridgestone is wrong?

Unfortuanelty it appears a side effect of the manufacturing process. Ill just know not to by Bridgestone again as their quality control is not as strict as I would like.
 

vc commodore

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2014
Messages
10,651
Reaction score
12,331
Points
113
Location
Like the Leyland Brothers
Members Ride
VC, VH and VY
I will definately keep you all informed.
Just a question sky, If I were to take it to Holden, don't you think they would just refer the problem to Bridgestone anyway. Not me, but get their own info from Bridgestone. If Bridgestone were to say that the tyre is within Bridgestone specifications, I am pretty sure that would be the end of it. Just because the consumer thinks there is a fault, doesn't mean there is one. So how would it be covered by the ACL?
Otherwise every unhappy customer for what ever little problem would be taking vendors to tribunal every second.

The engines in our cars shake and vibrate as well but some vibe would he expected.
I just think that Bridgestone are saying, they can't make a perfectly round tyre so some vibration will happen.
The fact is how would you ever prove the range set by Bridgestone is wrong?

Unfortuanelty it appears a side effect of the manufacturing process. Ill just know not to by Bridgestone again as their quality control is not as strict as I would like.

Holden would refer it to Bridgestone....If Bridgestone say it is within their tolerances, Holden would run with that and you'd still have the issue......The ACL would also take Bridgestones and Holdens words, which still means you are stuck with the issue.

The way to get to the bottom of the problem is, have a Bridgestone representative present with you and the company performing the tests, including a run in the car when the problem pops it's head up if required so everyone is on the same page....

If everyone that had issues like this, were to take it further, the system would be that clogged up, you'd be 6 feet under before it got anywhere
 

vc commodore

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2014
Messages
10,651
Reaction score
12,331
Points
113
Location
Like the Leyland Brothers
Members Ride
VC, VH and VY
A seller of a product handballing an issue to a manufacturer has landed many businesses in trouble with ACCC because the following statement is simply wrong in law.It is also wrong in law for a seller to require the cause of a fault to be confirmed as a manufacturing issue before a remedy must be provided under ACL. The law only requires that the fault be confirmed by the seller (in this case they go for a drive and confirm the wheels vibrate when driving dispite being balanced) and for the fault to be classified as minor/not minor before a remedy must be provided (such is obviously minor so buyer doesnt get to choose the remedy). The kicker is that as part of an ACL remedy, the buyer can include a claim for consequential loss (the $ spend tying to balance the faulty tyre).



.

Herein is where it has to be confirmed......By hand balling it through to Holden, then maybe onto the ACCC, you then have to arrange 4 different representatives of 4 different places, with the owner, to confirm the problem.....This could take months at minimum.

The 4 different places are the ACCC, Holden, Bridgestone, and a tyre company to confirm the issue....What a head ****....So yes all the years in the industry have taught me the best way to get to the bottom of a problem without stuff assing round, waiting months to fix an issue of this nature
 
Top