Ricey Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 LOL, good post Ricey. Dont agree with much of it, but good nonetheless I think the reason we disagree is that your a car brain and I'm a car mong so I get proper annoyed when I have to rely on someone to do something right and they don't. I woulnd't even think to check the wheels because I would expect that the experts got it right. You would check the wheels because your an experienced drifter and you know better than to take chances. RE getting something for nothing.......I agree Steve has little physical evidence and yet possibly driver error contributed but the garage should at least be asked to help with the repair (waive the dreaded, only charge cost, put a cap on the numbner of hours they'll charge labour). Problem is by doing they they essentially admit liability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeilMH Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 If a surgeon wired my balls to my heart instead of my pecker its not my fecking place to be ramming an endoscope down my dingle to check!!!!!!!!!! I don't think it is a good analogy because it would be unlikely that you could have performed that procedure yourself. It would be a mistake to assume that those advising against the legal route are insufficiently robust to do so. Having successfully taken legal action against a top PLC myself, against the advice of friends and family, I have some idea what is involved, so I certainly didn't give my opinion lightly. The tables for acceptable rim width do allow quite a large tolerance for 225/245. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stew Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 however I was looking for some engineering evidence that the tyre failed due to this. An explanation would help me understand it. Docwra I think what people are getting at is that due to the way the diff and traction control work that its possible that the heat the tyre was subjected to may have been extreme due to the tyres not running correctly across the axle causing malfunction of the diff and ESP It's something like this I'm thinking of, remember the y value in "x/y Rz" is a percentage of the width of the tyre, so the rolling radius of the 350z wheels/tyres is about 1cm different between the fronts and rears on rays with standard tyre sizes. Swapping both fronts and rears may be ok, but across an axle? I'm no expert, but surely that would be enough to cause extra use of the dif at the very least? But you don't know for sure if it would cause the accident? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neilp Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 however I was looking for some engineering evidence that the tyre failed due to this. An explanation would help me understand it. Docwra I think what people are getting at is that due to the way the diff and traction control work that its possible that the heat the tyre was subjected to may have been extreme due to the tyres not running correctly across the axle causing malfunction of the diff and ESP It's something like this I'm thinking of, remember the y value in "x/y Rz" is a percentage of the width of the tyre, so the rolling radius of the 350z wheels/tyres is about 1cm different between the fronts and rears on rays with standard tyre sizes. Swapping both fronts and rears may be ok, but across an axle? I'm no expert, but surely that would be enough to cause extra use of the dif at the very least? But you don't know for sure if it would cause the accident? Where there's possibility theres liability Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M13KYF Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Anyone got a link to this video? I'm clearly being a dullard and missing the obvious http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nK7-dnO2JZQ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M13KYF Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Tyres on wrong has to be a contributing factor and cant be just rulsd as driver error even if they didnt fail during the first session. I would seek some legal advise first. Perhaps aim for them to pay minimum half towards costs would be a fair outcome IMO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricey Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 If a surgeon wired my balls to my heart instead of my pecker its not my fecking place to be ramming an endoscope down my dingle to check!!!!!!!!!! I don't think it is a good analogy because it would be unlikely that you could have performed that procedure yourself. quote] Clearly you've never seen what I can do with an endoscope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaydnH Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 But you don't know for sure if it would cause the accident? Nope I can't say 100%. I'd be interested to test the dif though and see if it still works, purely for science though. Anyone know if the lsd on a Z is a clutch type? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeilMH Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 If a surgeon wired my balls to my heart instead of my pecker its not my fecking place to be ramming an endoscope down my dingle to check!!!!!!!!!! I don't think it is a good analogy because it would be unlikely that you could have performed that procedure yourself. quote] Clearly you've never seen what I can do with an endoscope. If it's ok with you, I'll give that a miss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaydnH Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Interesting post in this thread about 4x4s and tyre sizes, I don't see why this would be different when talking about rolling radius across an axle for a rwd: http://www.6speedonline.com/forums/whee ... -true.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Steve, PLEASE don't listen to the above and give up! Seek legal advice, if they say it's a non-starter then fine, but don't rely on people with no legal experience on a forum to put you off even trying Pretty sure myself and Colin both have legal experience, unless I'm getting Colin mixed up with someone completely different. I chose not to pursue a career in law, but certainly my time studying law at A Level wasn't entirely wasted albeit it was a while ago! I'm not saying that I'm a super huge expert, but I do have a rough clue what I'm talking about on this. I think for me, it's the fact that it would've failed an MOT if pulled over and that it may violate section 13 here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54 I can't see the link between s13 of SOGA and what happened here? The description of the service supplied was accurate, tyres were changed and fitted, albeit incorrectly. It would more fall under s14 if anything, unless that's what you meant and it was merely a typo. Again though, the OP is going to have a tough time proving that the garage were the last ones to touch the tyres & wheels unless he literally drove straight out of their place and into the Autodrome. If they admit their mistake in writing (and more fool them if they do), then it's a completely different story. If anything (and we're all assuming the tyre was the cause of this crash, it could well be driver error and the tyre delaminated during the slide, not after) the claim would be against the garage and then via Vredestein themselves for supplying a tyre not fit for purpose, however you then need it sent away for expensive tests to prove this. Running it on track won't help your cause as they'll just say that it's a road tyre, not a track one, and no warranty under that usage is implied. Good call about the MOT mind, although that in itself isn't illegal (for example, a garage is fully allowed to fit a decat pipe to a car, it's up to the driver to ensure that the car will pass an MOT unless the original contract specifies otherwise). @Ricey: Would I go back and complain? As I've said, yes I would, but on the basis that a bit of complaining may get me something. Certainly any legal attempt at redress isn't going to work here due to the circumstances. Yes, I'd be pi**ed at the garage for not fitting the tyres correctly, but I'd accept fault as the driver and move on as the OP originally started to do before all this tyre stuff came out. Other than name and shame and try to get some karma back that way, this is a dead end and the OP would be better putting his efforts and money into getting the car sorted. If nothing else, this is a great example of why I won't do a TD in the 911 without track insurance. Haydn, RP and Ricey, I'm really not trying to pick at you guys, I sincerely mean that despite how this post comes across. You're all just trying to help the OP, as we all are on here, and tbh this is one of the better threads I've seen of late in terms of members trying to help one another. I simply just disagree with your points, certainly not your goals behind them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darren-B Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 If nothing else, this is a great example of why I won't do a TD in the 911 without track insurance. +1 I always use the rule. If you can`t afford to repair or replace the car DON`T TRACK IT!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris`I Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 If nothing else, this is a great example of why I won't do a TD in the 911 without track insurance. +1 I always use the rule. If you can`t afford to repair or replace the car DON`T TRACK IT!! One reason why mine hasnt been anywhere near one yet and wont do until it drops in value quite a bit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M13KYF Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 If nothing else, this is a great example of why I won't do a TD in the 911 without track insurance. +1 I always use the rule. If you can`t afford to repair or replace the car DON`T TRACK IT!! +3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neilp Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 The funny thing is track insurance isn't that expensive even for full day events. However, getting the correct cover is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lrh Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nK7-dnO2JZQ Influence of tyres is being massively over-played... The throttle is still wide open when he hits the grass (not that the OP is denying blame). Most tyre places have disclaimers on their receipts saying check the nuts/pressure yourself. To be fair 99.9% of cars on the roads have the same size tyres front/rear and you see plenty of cars with direction treads on the wrong way round. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricey Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Steve, PLEASE don't listen to the above and give up! Seek legal advice, if they say it's a non-starter then fine, but don't rely on people with no legal experience on a forum to put you off even trying Pretty sure myself and Colin both have legal experience, unless I'm getting Colin mixed up with someone completely different. I chose not to pursue a career in law, but certainly my time studying law at A Level wasn't entirely wasted albeit it was a while ago! I'm not saying that I'm a super huge expert, but I do have a rough clue what I'm talking about on this. I think for me, it's the fact that it would've failed an MOT if pulled over and that it may violate section 13 here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54 I can't see the link between s13 of SOGA and what happened here? The description of the service supplied was accurate, tyres were changed and fitted, albeit incorrectly. It would more fall under s14 if anything, unless that's what you meant and it was merely a typo. Again though, the OP is going to have a tough time proving that the garage were the last ones to touch the tyres & wheels unless he literally drove straight out of their place and into the Autodrome. If they admit their mistake in writing (and more fool them if they do), then it's a completely different story. If anything (and we're all assuming the tyre was the cause of this crash, it could well be driver error and the tyre delaminated during the slide, not after) the claim would be against the garage and then via Vredestein themselves for supplying a tyre not fit for purpose, however you then need it sent away for expensive tests to prove this. Running it on track won't help your cause as they'll just say that it's a road tyre, not a track one, and no warranty under that usage is implied. Good call about the MOT mind, although that in itself isn't illegal (for example, a garage is fully allowed to fit a decat pipe to a car, it's up to the driver to ensure that the car will pass an MOT unless the original contract specifies otherwise). @Ricey: Would I go back and complain? As I've said, yes I would, but on the basis that a bit of complaining may get me something. Certainly any legal attempt at redress isn't going to work here due to the circumstances. Yes, I'd be pi**ed at the garage for not fitting the tyres correctly, but I'd accept fault as the driver and move on as the OP originally started to do before all this tyre stuff came out. Other than name and shame and try to get some karma back that way, this is a dead end and the OP would be better putting his efforts and money into getting the car sorted. If nothing else, this is a great example of why I won't do a TD in the 911 without track insurance. Haydn, RP and Ricey, I'm really not trying to pick at you guys, I sincerely mean that despite how this post comes across. You're all just trying to help the OP, as we all are on here, and tbh this is one of the better threads I've seen of late in terms of members trying to help one another. I simply just disagree with your points, certainly not your goals behind them. About the most non combative and well put across post I've seen from you Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M13KYF Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nK7-dnO2JZQ To be fair 99.9% of cars on the roads have the same size tyres front/rear and you see plenty of cars with direction treads on the wrong way round. no think you out on that estimation. BMW's for instance run different sizes front/back Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lrh Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 no think you out on that estimation. BMW's for instance run different sizes front/back Thinking more about diameter not width. Usually the difference in width/offset would make it obvious/impossible but not on the Z. Pretty rare for a car to have fronts and rears replaced at the same time too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RisingPower Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Twas a typo ekona I posted the 1979 not 1984 soga. But more for the sake of being not covered under Insurance and an invalid mot would not be a good thing, imo at least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siman350z Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Really sorry to see this mate. Having watched the vid, very odd crash? You were pushing on but unless you applied no lock at all, the car really did just veer off? And especially as you'd been driving all morning you're clearly aware of how the car *should* be behaving. From my armchair, it looks very much like that tyre delaminating was a huge contributing factor. It's a great read this thread but seriously, go and get legal advice, for all the comments on here, at the end of the day, none of us are legal experts in this field and you could have been seriously injured. Tyre fitters are clearly required to provide a service where the tyres are 'fit for purpose' which they aren't here. You weren't exceeding the tyre speed limit nor doing anything the car is not designed to do, and yet the tyre very clearly failed. The fact that it overheated may well have been linked to it's increased stress by being placed on the wrong corner. Get in contact with a solicitor. I might be able to give you an email of someone who could help if you're not sure who to talk to. I had a similar highly frustrating experience when a lotus main dealer sold me an exige with 0.5mm of tread on semi-slick tyres which then span in the wet. Yes I should have checked but that's why I went to the main dealer! For peace of mind! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveJJH Posted June 1, 2012 Author Share Posted June 1, 2012 I'm gutted I changed the camera angle for this run. Earlier I had the camera mounted to the rear strut brace and you could see my steering input. I did try to steer out of it, I promise, I know it doesn't look like it in the vid. I couldn't understand why it wasnt correcting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
U83R5Z Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 sad to see you beating yourself up to fathom out the cause... I dont think you will ever know for sure.. It looks like tyre problem from my perspective... Defalation on rear passenger side ? as you come out of bend.. Before you had time your front wheels were on grass.... Sad dayzzZZZ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gangzoom Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Just looked at video, glad the crash barrier did its job, and no one was hurt that's the main thing Go and make enquires about the garage etc but at the end of the day you've taken the car on to a track to drive it as fast as you can. You didn't ask the garage to prep the car for track work, you didn't check your tyres before going on the track and you have no proof what actually caused you to spin. MOTs re designed for cars on public roads not for cars been blasting around a track, if the accident happened on a publich road and you had support/proof from the police crash investigators than its a different issue. But at the same time unless you drive like a T*** it's unlikely on public roads your push the Z to its limit... If I was in your position I would count my self lucky, and get on with life....am sure a lawyer would love to get involved because win or loose the case they will stil get paid (and at £100s a hour it wouldn't take long before the legal fees are more than the cost of a replacement Z ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docwra Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 I'm gutted I changed the camera angle for this run. Earlier I had the camera mounted to the rear strut brace and you could see my steering input. I did try to steer out of it, I promise, I know it doesn't look like it in the vid. I couldn't understand why it wasnt correcting The way the car goes is very reminiscent of what mine did, lets just say my left rear tyre wasnt in the best condition at the time either Theres probably not much you could have done, with hindsight dipping the clutch might have pulled you out of it but hindsight is a wonderful thing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.