TireRack Refused to Sell Me Tires

jimberg · 01-05-2001, 01:10 PM

I'm not really complaining about Tire Rack, but am interested in what you guys think.

My retired father asked me to get him two Blizzaks (tire/wheel combo, actually) for his mini-van. I suggested that four would be better, but he couldn't afford them. I placed the order for two on Sunday and the following Tuesday he gets a call from Tire Rack where they tell him he needs to buy four or they won't sell him the tires at all.

Their reasoning was that mixing tire compounds on a vehicle could lead to unpredictable handling and they didn't want to expose themselves to the liability. They would, however, sell him two if they have sold him Blizzaks in the past for the same vehicle.

I suggested that if they were really concerned about liability that they must always sell four regardless of purchase history. Since the special compound of a Blizzak wears away long before the actual tire wears out, it could be very possible for a customer to unknowingly mix normal snow tire compound Blizzaks with new, ice tire compound Blizzaks. Or, A customer could have also replaced the tires locally and was deciding to only get two the next time around. I'm sure you guys can find more holes in their argument so I won't get into that.

I'm not sure if I should be annoyed that they are trying to force me to buy something that I don't want for shaky reasoning (I believe people have a right to assume certain liabilities) or if I should be satisfied that they have the customer's best interest at heart. This is where the discussion starts...

I didn't put this in performance industry because I think it is more philosophical than a complaint.

Moxie · 01-05-2001, 01:47 PM

Interesting topic. I can certainly understand their concern. If you were to get in an accident, you could sue the hell out of them, and they would have no real recourse.

Of course, we sell Drag Radials and slicks in pairs, and we simply state that these are special purpose tires, and what you do with them is your responsibility. It is a little different, because we can present racing tires as for off-road use only, whereas Blizzaks are specifically for public road use on snow and ice.

------------------
Moxie Racing

Unit 5302 · 01-05-2001, 01:58 PM

I'd have so say they are dead on with their reasoning.

I've seen what Blizzaks do in person, they are quite phenominal. If you were to mix all seasons on front, with say blizzaks on back it would lead to a potentially dangerous mismatch. The car would inspire a false sense of security when accelerating, while performing poorly when attempting to stop and corner. They can definately make it seem like the road is less slippery than it really is.

Bridgestone has issued a warning to that affect since the Blizzak hit the market, about 4 years ago I think. The Tire Rack has echoed that warning too. It appears that they have determined that there really is a liability to themselves over that time since the manufacturer states that the tires are not to be mixed, even with conventional snow tires.

It opens up a world of hurt to the Tire Rack if some one files a lawsuit. It's quite simple to say that the represenative at the Tire Rack didn't say anything about the potential hazards of mixing the Blizzaks with other tires. After all, why would any one take that risk?

Jaydee · 01-05-2001, 02:26 PM

I just bought my second set of Blizzaks from Tire Rack to put on my minivan. My first set were installed on a 2wd Ranger pickup. The traction capabilities of these tires when running in the slippery stuff is amazing - you have to drive on them to appreciate how good they are. Through experience, I can understand the 4 tire policy as no matter what type/brand tire you would put on the vehicle to compliment the Blizzaks they would not have the traction capability to match up and this could easily cause a problem. For what its worth I checked two local tire chains before buying this set and besides being over 125.00 higher in cost, they also would only sell them in sets of four as Bridgestone recommends. These tire dealers are (justifiabley so) covering their backsides.

jimberg · 01-05-2001, 03:27 PM

I personally believe that four is the way to go. I've purchased 3 sets of Blizzaks already.

My problem is that they must either insist on ALWAYS selling in sets of four or just sell people what they want. Saying that they would sell two based on purchase history opens them up to liability more so than if they just let people buy what they want. By acknowledging that they may be liable for selling only two, they are taking on the responsibility of making safety decisions for the customer. If they overlook the case where a customer is mixing new Blizzaks with old Blizzaks and then that customer crashes because of the mixed set of tires, they are more liable since in the initial purchase they gave the customer the false impression that they wouldn't sell them the two tires if it was unsafe.

Their tests of stability are based on a RWD BMW not a FWD mini-van. Unit 5302's comment about a false sense of security is absolutely correct when it comes to putting Blizzak's on a RWD car. As an aside, people who drive 4wd vehicles usually have this same false sense of security. Anyway, since the braking (for all practical purposes), steering, and acceleration are all done with the front wheels of a FWD car, it isn't that big of a difference. Now add anti-lock brakes and it is even less of a problem. I have a set of four Blizzaks for our 91 Probe (no anti-locks) and drove the first couple winters on them. Now I only have two on the front and I haven't noticed much difference. They still get going and brake just fine.

Don't get me wrong, I intend to keep buying tires from them because I am quite satisfied with the quality and value of my past purchases with them. I'm just curious if people buy into the idea that they're looking out for the customer or they are just using a superficial reason to force people into buying four tires and not two. Do you agree or disagree with the idea that they may be opening themselves up to greater liability if they take it upon themselves to make our purchasing decisions for us.

Jaydee · 01-05-2001, 03:56 PM

Excellent point jimberg - Matching up 2 new Blizzaks with 2 older ones that worn to the point where they are no more effective than a regular set of all season tires really makes no sense and it would seem that the liability question would be very much alive and valid. Both of the tire dealers I checked before buying from Tire Rack would not sell me less than four of these for my vehicle - period. If you read the literature from Bridgestone on these tires they are pretty much to the point and state they should only be used in sets of 4. I wonder if Tire Rack would require some type of proof of mileage on the ones you now own, before they would sell you only two tires?

buddha · 01-05-2001, 07:48 PM

Ok, I can see Tire-Racks point somewhat.

Lets say that you buy the 4 like they require, and only put a few hundred miles on them. Then lets say you run over something that damages the sidewall in which case you would need a replacement tire. According to Tire-Rack, you can't buy another tire unless you buy three.

And as far as tire wear, it is possible to wear out the tires in twos quicker than it is in fours (espcially if they dont get rotated enough).

Is this Tire-Racks policy, or are they just following the manufactuers warning? I've been a customer of TRs and have had no problems at all, but I see a lot of holes in their arguement.

jimberg · 01-05-2001, 08:14 PM

It's Tire Rack's policy based on a manufacturer's recommendation. They aren't bound by it.

Unit 5302 · 01-05-2001, 08:37 PM

I'd say straight up the reasoning behind it is to protect their own backsides.

Revenue seems to be the big "word" amongst companies today. Revenue this, revenue that. If they thought that they'd be okay going against the manufacturers reccomendations,and just sell two tires to somebody they would. Otherwise, they'd always sell only sets of four, for all tires, not just the Blizzaks.

NoSlow5.0 · 01-06-2001, 09:48 AM

I have never heard of anything like this before in my life, and neither have my old a$$ parents, in any state or country we have lived in. They are just trying to make you buy 4 tires when all you want is 2. It's all about the benjamins baby. Walk up in there with a sawed down pool cue and be like, "YO! SOMEBODY BEST BE GETTIN ME SUM BLIZZAKS BEFOE I CRAZY APE ALL UP IN THIS MO FO! YA'LL BOUT TO MAKE ME LOOSE MY MIND....UP IN HERE...UP IN HERE!" You'll either get your tires, or arressted. Either way i'm sure it would be a great show. Light Em Up!!!

Frogger · 01-06-2001, 10:49 AM

Interesting info...

------------------
2K blown electric green GT
Mustangworks, Girlscantoo "Dec. Mare of the Month"

[This message has been edited by Frogger (edited 01-06-2001).]

cobrayankee · 01-06-2001, 11:56 PM

Well these are the same people that sold me 4 Kumho tires. I never heard of them, so I asked the sales rep and he claimed they were great for the price. So here I am, 4 months later, trying to gain traction on any surface in any gear.

------------------
1997 Cobra (Black on black), C+L 80mm MAF, K+N filter, Pro 5.0 shifter, BBK Springs, Taylor Wires, 2 Chamber Flows, ASP Pulleys, BBK off road H pipe.

mikew88gt · 01-08-2001, 07:50 AM

There was a case a few years ago dealing with studded tires. Apparently someone just wanted 2 studded tires on their minivan and it spun out going around a curve. The family of the victim(s) sued the tire store and won big time. I've questioned local tire places about this and almost all of them said they will not sell only 2 studded tires to FWD customers. Some will sell 2 to RWD. As far as the Blizzaks go I don't know if that same policy holds true but common sense should dictate. How much more would it cost vs. your personal safety? I think Tire Rack is just looking at protecting themselves from a possible lawsuit and if anything it probably says wonders about Blizzak. (Course I've never owned them).

01-05-2001, 01:10 PM	#1
jimberg Registered Member Join Date: Oct 1998 Location: Rogers, MN Posts: 2,089	TireRack Refused to Sell Me Tires I'm not really complaining about Tire Rack, but am interested in what you guys think. My retired father asked me to get him two Blizzaks (tire/wheel combo, actually) for his mini-van. I suggested that four would be better, but he couldn't afford them. I placed the order for two on Sunday and the following Tuesday he gets a call from Tire Rack where they tell him he needs to buy four or they won't sell him the tires at all. Their reasoning was that mixing tire compounds on a vehicle could lead to unpredictable handling and they didn't want to expose themselves to the liability. They would, however, sell him two if they have sold him Blizzaks in the past for the same vehicle. I suggested that if they were really concerned about liability that they must always sell four regardless of purchase history. Since the special compound of a Blizzak wears away long before the actual tire wears out, it could be very possible for a customer to unknowingly mix normal snow tire compound Blizzaks with new, ice tire compound Blizzaks. Or, A customer could have also replaced the tires locally and was deciding to only get two the next time around. I'm sure you guys can find more holes in their argument so I won't get into that. I'm not sure if I should be annoyed that they are trying to force me to buy something that I don't want for shaky reasoning (I believe people have a right to assume certain liabilities) or if I should be satisfied that they have the customer's best interest at heart. This is where the discussion starts... I didn't put this in performance industry because I think it is more philosophical than a complaint.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
tires i can fit to 15 x 10 welds ?	5000cc	Windsor Power	3	05-08-2005 09:10 PM
Questions about tires...	Her99GT	Blue Oval Lounge	6	04-13-2005 04:01 PM
No more tires	GTJules99	Corner Carvers Delight	7	03-01-2003 05:13 PM
Wheel Size Effect	BlackFireN2O	Windsor Power	6	10-23-2002 08:42 PM

01-05-2001, 01:47 PM	#2
Moxie Registered Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Plymouth, MI Posts: 254	Interesting topic. I can certainly understand their concern. If you were to get in an accident, you could sue the hell out of them, and they would have no real recourse. Of course, we sell Drag Radials and slicks in pairs, and we simply state that these are special purpose tires, and what you do with them is your responsibility. It is a little different, because we can present racing tires as for off-road use only, whereas Blizzaks are specifically for public road use on snow and ice. ------------------ Moxie Racing

01-05-2001, 01:58 PM	#3
Unit 5302 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 5,246	I'd have so say they are dead on with their reasoning. I've seen what Blizzaks do in person, they are quite phenominal. If you were to mix all seasons on front, with say blizzaks on back it would lead to a potentially dangerous mismatch. The car would inspire a false sense of security when accelerating, while performing poorly when attempting to stop and corner. They can definately make it seem like the road is less slippery than it really is. Bridgestone has issued a warning to that affect since the Blizzak hit the market, about 4 years ago I think. The Tire Rack has echoed that warning too. It appears that they have determined that there really is a liability to themselves over that time since the manufacturer states that the tires are not to be mixed, even with conventional snow tires. It opens up a world of hurt to the Tire Rack if some one files a lawsuit. It's quite simple to say that the represenative at the Tire Rack didn't say anything about the potential hazards of mixing the Blizzaks with other tires. After all, why would any one take that risk?

01-05-2001, 02:26 PM	#4
Jaydee Registered Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Conn. Posts: 220	I just bought my second set of Blizzaks from Tire Rack to put on my minivan. My first set were installed on a 2wd Ranger pickup. The traction capabilities of these tires when running in the slippery stuff is amazing - you have to drive on them to appreciate how good they are. Through experience, I can understand the 4 tire policy as no matter what type/brand tire you would put on the vehicle to compliment the Blizzaks they would not have the traction capability to match up and this could easily cause a problem. For what its worth I checked two local tire chains before buying this set and besides being over 125.00 higher in cost, they also would only sell them in sets of four as Bridgestone recommends. These tire dealers are (justifiabley so) covering their backsides.

01-05-2001, 03:27 PM	#5
jimberg Registered Member Join Date: Oct 1998 Location: Rogers, MN Posts: 2,089	I personally believe that four is the way to go. I've purchased 3 sets of Blizzaks already. My problem is that they must either insist on ALWAYS selling in sets of four or just sell people what they want. Saying that they would sell two based on purchase history opens them up to liability more so than if they just let people buy what they want. By acknowledging that they may be liable for selling only two, they are taking on the responsibility of making safety decisions for the customer. If they overlook the case where a customer is mixing new Blizzaks with old Blizzaks and then that customer crashes because of the mixed set of tires, they are more liable since in the initial purchase they gave the customer the false impression that they wouldn't sell them the two tires if it was unsafe. Their tests of stability are based on a RWD BMW not a FWD mini-van. Unit 5302's comment about a false sense of security is absolutely correct when it comes to putting Blizzak's on a RWD car. As an aside, people who drive 4wd vehicles usually have this same false sense of security. Anyway, since the braking (for all practical purposes), steering, and acceleration are all done with the front wheels of a FWD car, it isn't that big of a difference. Now add anti-lock brakes and it is even less of a problem. I have a set of four Blizzaks for our 91 Probe (no anti-locks) and drove the first couple winters on them. Now I only have two on the front and I haven't noticed much difference. They still get going and brake just fine. Don't get me wrong, I intend to keep buying tires from them because I am quite satisfied with the quality and value of my past purchases with them. I'm just curious if people buy into the idea that they're looking out for the customer or they are just using a superficial reason to force people into buying four tires and not two. Do you agree or disagree with the idea that they may be opening themselves up to greater liability if they take it upon themselves to make our purchasing decisions for us.

01-05-2001, 03:56 PM	#6
Jaydee Registered Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Conn. Posts: 220	Excellent point jimberg - Matching up 2 new Blizzaks with 2 older ones that worn to the point where they are no more effective than a regular set of all season tires really makes no sense and it would seem that the liability question would be very much alive and valid. Both of the tire dealers I checked before buying from Tire Rack would not sell me less than four of these for my vehicle - period. If you read the literature from Bridgestone on these tires they are pretty much to the point and state they should only be used in sets of 4. I wonder if Tire Rack would require some type of proof of mileage on the ones you now own, before they would sell you only two tires?

01-05-2001, 07:48 PM	#7
buddha Registered Member Join Date: Feb 2000 Location: Washington, MO Posts: 327	Ok, I can see Tire-Racks point somewhat. Lets say that you buy the 4 like they require, and only put a few hundred miles on them. Then lets say you run over something that damages the sidewall in which case you would need a replacement tire. According to Tire-Rack, you can't buy another tire unless you buy three. And as far as tire wear, it is possible to wear out the tires in twos quicker than it is in fours (espcially if they dont get rotated enough). Is this Tire-Racks policy, or are they just following the manufactuers warning? I've been a customer of TRs and have had no problems at all, but I see a lot of holes in their arguement.

01-05-2001, 08:14 PM	#8
jimberg Registered Member Join Date: Oct 1998 Location: Rogers, MN Posts: 2,089	It's Tire Rack's policy based on a manufacturer's recommendation. They aren't bound by it.

01-05-2001, 08:37 PM	#9
Unit 5302 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 5,246	I'd say straight up the reasoning behind it is to protect their own backsides. Revenue seems to be the big "word" amongst companies today. Revenue this, revenue that. If they thought that they'd be okay going against the manufacturers reccomendations,and just sell two tires to somebody they would. Otherwise, they'd always sell only sets of four, for all tires, not just the Blizzaks.

01-06-2001, 09:48 AM	#10
NoSlow5.0 YOU HAVE NO MARBLES!!!!!! Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Jonesboro,Georgia,USA (Providence, Ri) Posts: 868	I have never heard of anything like this before in my life, and neither have my old a$$ parents, in any state or country we have lived in. They are just trying to make you buy 4 tires when all you want is 2. It's all about the benjamins baby. Walk up in there with a sawed down pool cue and be like, "YO! SOMEBODY BEST BE GETTIN ME SUM BLIZZAKS BEFOE I CRAZY APE ALL UP IN THIS MO FO! YA'LL BOUT TO MAKE ME LOOSE MY MIND....UP IN HERE...UP IN HERE!" You'll either get your tires, or arressted. Either way i'm sure it would be a great show. Light Em Up!!!

01-06-2001, 10:49 AM	#11
Frogger Registered Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 12	Interesting info... ------------------ 2K blown electric green GT Mustangworks, Girlscantoo "Dec. Mare of the Month" [This message has been edited by Frogger (edited 01-06-2001).]

01-06-2001, 11:56 PM	#12
cobrayankee Registered Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Baltimore, MD Posts: 516	Well these are the same people that sold me 4 Kumho tires. I never heard of them, so I asked the sales rep and he claimed they were great for the price. So here I am, 4 months later, trying to gain traction on any surface in any gear. ------------------ 1997 Cobra (Black on black), C+L 80mm MAF, K+N filter, Pro 5.0 shifter, BBK Springs, Taylor Wires, 2 Chamber Flows, ASP Pulleys, BBK off road H pipe.

01-08-2001, 07:50 AM	#13
mikew88gt Registered Member Join Date: Jul 1999 Location: New York State Posts: 242	There was a case a few years ago dealing with studded tires. Apparently someone just wanted 2 studded tires on their minivan and it spun out going around a curve. The family of the victim(s) sued the tire store and won big time. I've questioned local tire places about this and almost all of them said they will not sell only 2 studded tires to FWD customers. Some will sell 2 to RWD. As far as the Blizzaks go I don't know if that same policy holds true but common sense should dictate. How much more would it cost vs. your personal safety? I think Tire Rack is just looking at protecting themselves from a possible lawsuit and if anything it probably says wonders about Blizzak. (Course I've never owned them).