Hitch

Funny I guess that Firestone hasn't updated their website for six years... Supreme Si is still available.. Guess maybe who ever told you that they were not still being made was wrong..

http://www.bridgestonetire.com/tires...earchbyproduct

http://productcat.bridgestonetire.co.../pp_383859.pdf

2toys

I see you didn't bother to read my post @ 3:36 yesterday were I stated the Firestone store employee was wrong probably due to the FACT the Si is not available to Firestone company stores.

Keep the factious comments coming.

2toys

I'm tired of the BULLS**T. If you can't read that there was no original DOT TIN code on the outside OR the inside sidewall........ I'll reserve what I was going to say.

Hitch

I did read it. I just posted it to show that it was still on their site. It was not included to undercut what you had already commented only to provide factual information. I guess some people feel that since this is the internet they can post with out cause..

You made a reference to the Wilderness tire and would we be concerned if it was our wife. Well see now you are comparing apples to oranges as that as I posted before from the DOT site that Coker was the named remanufacture. However just because only one company was named does not mean that it doesn't apply to another like company. You have done nothing with this post but to generate a negative for Diamondback that is not merited. They produce a good product and have by all appearance never sold out of date tires. I have heard nothing but praise from people here on the forum and off the forum. Just because a remanufactured tire does not have a TIN does not automatically mean the tire age can not be determined. Yes Diamondback says that this date is the date of remanufacture and there is no real way to determine the actual date of construction. If you don't feel comfortable with it.. Great for you. SEND EM BACK..

Man calm down. No one on this site is here to belittle you but almost all of you posts have a malicious overtone.. I'm done.. I think that CT covered it pretty well earlier.... Have a good day... Dave..

2toys

I just spoke with Mr. Bill Chapman President of Diamondback tires. He understood my concern, and I stated I intended no harm to his company. As a result they are changing their "stamp" for the date code to read, as DOT shows on the DOT web-site, the first two numbers will signify the week, second two the year.

To all who think I'm a rotten Bast**d, tough.

Hitch

Are they going to make it as the original TIN or just still the date that Diamondback remanufactures it? If it's the latter it hasn't addressed you real concern..


It's comments like this that are not needed.

2toys

There does not seem to be any concern over my concern, everyone seems to feel I raised an issue which should have no concern to me or anyone else. To answer your question, my understanding is it will only address the date the tire was modified.

Hitch

So still after all of this are you satisfied? There is still no way to denote what the actual manufacture date is. That was what you were worried about right? So how does this change anything that you were worried about thru out this entire thread?

I don't think that people have discounted you concern only how you went about it and how you come across on this forum. I guess my only advice is that treat the people here the same as you would in person... Dave..

Plastic Pig

2toys. I understand your point and do not understand why everyone else is getting their panties in a bunch. I didn't interpret anything you wrote as malicious. You voiced a concern and it was sort of addressed.

It seems to me that your original concern, the issue of tire manufacture date was not addressed. I think wanting to know this is a valid concern.

JMHO

ctjackster

With all due respect, and falling in the category you described as those having bunched panties, here is 2toys original "point":

"Yesterday I received four goldstripe tires from Diamondback. They are made from Firestone Supreme Si's. The date code shows made in 2000 and a call to the Firestone store confirms and also have not made this tire since 2000."

All of that (the date code shows they were made in 2000, and the tire has not been made since 2000) has been now shown to have been wrong (not saying why, just that it is INCORRECT information.) But it's out there, it will live in the archives, and the title he chose: "New Diamondback Tires - old date code - - did I get taken" is still getting seen on the play list here.

A real man (whether he wears panites or not) should step up, correct the record, and maybe even admit to having gotten it wrong. Instead, the real panty-wearer around here chose to change his point / whine, now it might be "all retreaders and special interest tire reconditioners should brand the TIN code into their tires" or "Diamondback should follow the DOT format in its retread date code" (that's fine, and it has seemingly been accomplished) or is it now "all retreaders and special interest tire reconditioners must preserve the original date code"?

sorry, but you already told me I had my panites in a wad, I guess I had to live up to that characterization . . . .

Plastic Pig

I would see this statement as inviting feedback. Apparently we are free to give it as long as we agree with you. I'll try to remember that for future posts.


Where exactly did he not come clean with everything he found out and where did he tarnish Diamondbacks reputation ? I think everyone learned something from this thread. Dbacks response to John Z shows genuine concern and wanting to help on their part.

I would assume someone would read the whole thread before forming an opinion.

Personally My tires are gone way before the use by dates, but many people do not drive their cars much and the date of manufacture would be nice to have. I believe there have even been some posts about tires blowing up and people checking the dates on their tires and finding them bad so it certailnly is a relevant topic.


"Lighten up Francis"

ctjackster

Mr. Duntov 097:

You are certainly free to post anything you wish, agreeing with me or otherwise. If otherwise, however, I reserve the right to disagree with you, which I hope you don't find offensive, if properly expressed. I will refrain from referring to you as having your panties in a twist unless you tell me again that mine are!

now, as far as the new point that has recently emerged in this thread - the fact that all retreaders, and classic tire specialty operations like Diamonback and Coker, restamp (dare I use that term here?) the DOT date code that was eliminated by their process, and when doing so use a current date - that is nothing new, it has been the SOP in that corner of the tire industry. It is not just a Diamonback issue, nor just a Coker issue. Fact is, you cannot tell by looking at a Coker tire, or a retreaded tire, or a Diamonback tire, when it was originally manufactured, and that fact is known to DOT and seemingly OK with DOT. You will have to lobby DOT to get the rule changed, or lobby individual manufacturers to get them to voluntarily do something different from what is required.

But back to Diamondback, and the main thrust of the original posters' complaint, which you seem to miss but I simply direct you to the thread title that remains - that Diamondback is selling out of date tires. While I suppose they could, under the retreader's stamp system, use really old tires and Goldwall them this week and sell such with a correspondingly fresh (when goldwalled) date stamp, I don't think anything in these posts has shown this to be the case - in fact, the Firestone Supreme Si is a relatively new tire (contrary to the original poster's other complaint) so that would not even seem possible in this case.

So, we have made the point that these specialty tire operations (or any retreader) could use old tires (perhaps acquired very cheaply) and this fact would not be readily discernable to the ultimate consumer. Given Diamondback's reputation with this community, I doubt that is a part of their business plan or thier normal course of operation. Thinking out loud here, one way to address many of the recently expressed concerns might be to ask Diamondback to record the original date codes and TINs (from the tires they use for your job) for you when you place your order. Don't know if they would do that though - but it would not hurt to ask. They are a small, friendly operation.

Me, I am a control freak and a penny pincher, so when I dealt with Diamondback it was at a time when they allowed you to SEND them the tires for the goldline process, which I did (they really did not like that though, and told me I was the last customer allowed to do that). So I purchased the base tires from TireRack and directed delivery straight to Diamondback (I saved like $50 in total for five tires). But I still missed the chance to check and record the DOT date codes and TINs, if I was so inclined. I assume TireRack was selling fresh tires though.

Regards,

Jack

[not that I think the pity violin is relevant, but you seemed fond of it, so I kindly put one here for you.]

Glenn"Mr.Blue"Smith

Whew Do you guys get up tight or what! I see that some of the most upset post come from liftime members and such. Guess it gets to the point you forget why we us newbees came to this site to begin with...Fellowship (frindship) with other Vette owners.
I never have been so worried about the date codes as many here seem to be, and I drive at VERY high speeds often. Guess you can call me crazzzy While date codes on tires intended to be used on nostalgic vettes that will probably NEVER see the performance driving they were built for originally, seems counter productive, I never bought into the whole Fireston / Ford crazy deal. It was proven that almost to the whole bunch, the problem was under inflation, improper useage issues, not really only that a tire was 5 years old!! We are so good at redirecting blame now-a-days for our own poor decisions and actions, that we are smothered by government protection and laws, that no one (hardly) can afford to do business here in the good old USA Just look at the flack Diamondback is under in this post due to govt rules and public insanity about being protected from unrealstic fears. A good company who is trying to fullfill a real need of antique/collector car owners is being pressured to add yet another level of govt intrusion into their attemps at making a good product at a reasonable price. As I've stated before in some other posts, can't we all just get along with each other and get back to the real point of this site. Just my two cents. Slam me if you want. I'm just whatone lifetime member refered to as a 'part time poster'. Seems I'm too busy actually working on and driving my vette to post here all the time...imagin that
Glenn 'Mr. Blue' Smith '66 Pro Street Vette, "LOVE IS BLUE"

Subfixer

Thanks Glenn. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Seaside63

Diamondback exists because people want to buy tires WITHOUT all the DOT mandated nomenclature plastered all over the sidewalls.

Then the OP is complaining because the DOT information is missing.

Am I the only one going, "huh" ???

Glenn"Mr.Blue"Smith

NOT AT ALL

Plastic Pig

I could care less about DOT or the date codes. I make my own educated decisions on what I use. I drive my C5 around on ET Streets most of the summer for crying out loud. I would never need to use a Coker or Dback tire to begin with. I was just lending support to 2 toys, who I thought was being unfairly attacked.


I will stand by my previous statement.



Thread title is
Diamondback tires-- old date code -- did I get taken--Advise

The key words here are did and advise clearly the poster was asking a question and looking for advice, which he got and not stating a fact

The date and out of manufacture tire issue were addressed in the thread, both in a favorable light for Dback.


I guess I am stupid in that I don't see how this thread harmed Dback.
Issues were brought up and then addressed in a positive way. Like I said before, Dback answered the questions and showed they are interested in having satisfied customers.




Glenn.

What flack did Dback take ? An issue was brought up. Then it was addressed in a way that showed there was no wrongdoing whatsoever by Dback.

I am not upset, just having a lively debate on issues in the hobby. This is the Corvette Forum

fo·rum ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fôrm, fr-)
n. pl. fo·rums, also fo·ra (fôr, fr)

The public square or marketplace of an ancient Roman city that was the assembly place for judicial activity and public business.
A public meeting place for open discussion.
A medium of open discussion or voicing of ideas, such as a newspaper or a radio or television program.
A public meeting or presentation involving a discussion usually among experts and often including audience participation.
A court of law; a tribunal.


That is what we do here, talk about issues.


As for the lifetime member comment and how you are to busy to post because of all the driving and working on your Corvette you do In the past 5 years I have done 2 body offs, built a tube frame 57, and built a 10 sec C5. I have driven to Carlisle, Bloomington, Bowling Green, Watkins Glen, Daytona, Knoxville, and many others on a yearly basis. So I guess some people can just do more than others. I will say at least we support the forum we use.
If you choose not to then fine, but no need to take a shot at people who do. I chose to support it due to the great people and great information i've found here.


Jack if you were truly offended by panties in a bunch then I apologize. I guess my sense of humor is not the same as everyone elses. I would see this as a humorous way to address this situation where as it apparently offended you.

Glenn"Mr.Blue"Smith

"A court of law; a tribunal."
I guess that's what I was a little bothered by. But you are very right spirted debate IS what this place is for, in addition to the info and fellowship I refered to earlier. I just felt some of it was a bit mean spirited. Guess I wrong. I'm sorry you took offense also. It DID seem to me that Dback was getting leaned on because they were trying to pass off some old tires (at least that was implied in what I read in some of the post, again, sorry)
Finally, I'm very impressed and have been put back into my place by your accomplishments. Two frame offs are very good work. I don't manage my time so well in my old age, plus I need a lot more rest between jobs. I've had two open heart surgeries, three back surgeries, and still try to get out there in my home's garage and accomplish what use to take me no time when I was younger. Please enjoy your vette while you can. Glad you're here on the forum. Hopefully, still your friend, Glenn

ctjackster

I tapped way too many keys on this thread already, just posting up to say I was not offended by the panties comment - I toss around too much caustic wit and sarcasm, and have no right to get offended myself . . . . I would only be offended [disgusted, actually] if some rabble rouser ended up getting DOT to force DBack to put all kinds of federally-mandated gunk on their tires, when nearly all of us who buy a product from them do so because we specifically DO NOT WANT that gunk.

later . .

Plastic Pig

I meant no mean spiritedness with anything I said. If I couldn't be friends with people I disagree with on something I would be awfully lonely.

I was not trying to impress with my accomplishments. I was just saying I do more than occasionally post something stupid on the forum

I guess everyone reads and interprets everything differently. I see this thread as questions asked - questions answered and thats it.
Seeing as Dback knows about this thread and isn't posting or asking for its removal I would guess they are satisfied with its outcome.



Bob