Michelin preliminary evaluation PE14031
XZA 295/60/R22.5 Steer Tire Failures. NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation opened this preliminary evaluation about the tires. Opened Oct 6, 2014, closed Feb 27, 2015 after 5 months. It led to safety recall 14V740000. became a recall
What NHTSA says
Source: Office of Defects Investigation, as filedThe Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened this investigation based on seven (7) Vehicle Owner Questionnaires (VOQ) and a Police Accident Report (PAR) alleging failures of Michelin XZA tires. The PAR reported an auto hauler left the roadway and rolled onto it's side and losingsome of it's load. Fortunately, the driver was unharmed and no other vehicles were involved. ODI received ten (10) additional VOQs during the investigation. The VOQs included both 295/60/R22.5 and 275/70/R22.5 tire sizes. ODI focused on the 295/60 tires as they were specified as original equipment on many auto hauler trucks. Due to their unique loading configuration, auto haulers tend to place a high demand on front tires. The 295/60 has a maximum load and speed rating of 7,390 pounds and 65 mph when maintained at 130 psi (cold) inflation pressure on a 9 rim. Pressure below 130 psi reduces the maximum load and Michelin only approves mounting the 295/60 on a 9 inch rim. While physically possible, mounting on any other size rim compromises the integrity of the 295/60 tire. Alternately, the maximum speed can be raised to 75 mph when the tire is mounted on a 9 rim with 130 psi pressure and the load does not exceed 7,150 pounds. During the investigation, ODI collected and analyzed vehicle, crash, and tire information. In addition to sending an Information Request (IR) letter to Michelin, ODI collected information from several vehicle manufacturers. Electronic data from the subject crash vehicle showed the vehicle was traveling in excess of 75 mph when the tire failure occurred. Michelin investigated all subject tire failure claims they were aware of. In each case the failure could be explained by one of the following: (1) violating the interdependency of tire load, inflation pressure and vehicle speed, (2) misapplication of rim vs. tire size or (3) a road hazard. Some fleets assumed there was a defect with the 295/60 tires and used the 275/70 instead. Michelin does not approve mounting a 275/70 on a 9 rim. In the event that the rim was appropriately changed to a 7.5 or 8.25 inch, the load capability would be reduced. No design changes were reported for the subject tires. This removed the possibility that a design or material specification change caused the recent failures. The more likely explanation of failures is the increase in maximum speed limits in several states. Currently, no truck tire is rated in excess of 81 mph (speed ratingM) with the vast majority rated at 75 mph (speed rating L), yet 16 states have maximum truck speeds equal to or greater then 75 mph. Of these 16, four allow truck speeds of 80 mph or more. To further understand the environment of the subject tires, ODI conducted a special survey (level 4 inspections) with the assistance of the Pennsylvania State Police, Motor Carrier Enforcement. ODI weighed individual steer axle tires and measured the inflation pressure of auto haulers. Of the trucks inspected, 55% had an overloaded tire based on the actual load and inflation pressure (assumed to be cold).When asked, 60% of the drivers did not know the proper inflation pressure as certified by the OEM for the vehicle they were driving. During this investigation, Volvo recalled a population of auto hauler trucks that were originally equipped with tires rated for a maximum speed of 65 mph. As originally built, the recalled vehicles were capable of exceeding the tire speed rating. Volvo's recall sets the speed limiters on the vehicles to prevent exceeding the tire speed rating. This investigation is closed. The agency reserves the right to take further action if warranted. The ODI reports cited above can
A Preliminary Evaluation is the first formal stage: NHTSA has decided the complaints and other information it screened are worth a closer look, and asks the manufacturer for its own data on the condition. The summary is the agency’s own text from its investigation file, unedited; the opening and closing resumes with the full reasoning are on NHTSA’s site under this number.
What this means for an owner
Source: and what happens nextAn investigation is not a finding that a defect exists, and it puts no duty on anyone. NHTSA opens a Preliminary Evaluation when complaints and other reports suggest a condition worth asking the manufacturer about; it upgrades to an Engineering Analysis when the answers warrant testing; it closes either when it recommends a recall, when the manufacturer recalls on its own, or when no defect trend is found. The agency’s own goals are about four months for a petition, eight for a Preliminary Evaluation or a Recall Query and eighteen for an Engineering Analysis; many run longer.
This one became a recall. The campaign page carries the manufacturer’s filed defect, risk and remedy, the build window and every model year covered; whether one specific vehicle is included is settled by VIN at nhtsa.gov/recalls.
Model years it names
Source: as NHTSA filed themNHTSA filed this action against MICHELIN TIRE CORP. without naming a model year — an equipment or manufacturer-level query.
Common questions
Source: NHTSA Office of Defects InvestigationIs PE14031 a recall?
No — it is the investigation that led to one. Recall 14V740000 is the campaign; its page carries the remedy.
Is PE14031 still open?
No. It closed on Feb 27, 2015 and led to recall 14V740000.
Which vehicles does PE14031 cover?
NHTSA filed it against MICHELIN TIRE CORP. without naming a model year.