patrick.net

https://autos.yahoo.com/news/counterfeit-tires-pose-consumer-risk-110000450.html

What began as a routine tire test became a journey through a maze of deception, finger-pointing, and a lack of accountability that in itself could prove dangerous if the product should prove to be defective.

When it comes to safety and performance, Consumer Reports has long said that you shouldn't skimp on tires. That's what we discovered once again when we recently tested three sets of Chinese-branded all-season truck tires that cost as little as $89 apiece in our test size, 265/70R17. All three of these bargain-bin tires landed at the bottom of our Ratings, in part because of their performance in our winter-condition test, as well as so-so to poor tread life. The surprise came when the owner and distributor of one set of the tires alleged that the tires we tested were "gray market”-that is, produced or sold by a factory and vendor that were not authorized to make or distribute them-and from tire molds that may have been stolen.

We've heard of fake Louis Vuitton handbags, Rolex watches, and "vintage” Bordeaux wines. But this was different.

Is it possible that a tire factory could hijack another company's brand and import "unauthorized” tires under the noses of U.S. customs and safety officials, and then sell them through legitimate retail channels on the open market? And what happens to the consumer when the owner of the brand name and the tire retailer walk away from any responsibility for the suspect tire?

The Odyssey began when Consumer Reports tested the $95 Chinese-made Pegasus Advanta SUV tire and found its performance in winter conditions, specifically snow traction and ice braking, was poor.

After publishing our Ratings, we were contacted by representatives of the Scottsdale, Ariz.,-based American Pacific Industries, owner of the Pegasus brand in the United States. It said Consumer Reports' results were far below API's internal test results when it came to snow traction.

As is typical in such instances, API asked about our testing methodology, which it thought might explain the discrepancy in the results. API also asked for the date codes on the tires we had purchased-the tire information number found on all car tires that identifies the plant and date of production.

That conversation led to others, culminating in API's claim that the tires we tested were not manufactured or distributed by authorized parties. Based on the date codes on the tires, API officials claimed there was no way that the tires were legitimate Pegasus Advanta SUV tires-as the factory that produced them was no longer a Pegasus-authorized factory at that period in time. Moreover, API claimed it doesn't know for certain who made the suspect tires, or what types of materials or processes went into making that batch of tires.

According to a letter sent by Barry Littrell, API's chief operating officer:

"The Pegasus Advanta SUV tires you tested … were not produced by any authorized vendor to American Pacific Industries; who owns the trademark ‘Pegasus Advanta SUV' and the hardware used to produce those tires.”

All tires are required by federal law to have date codes stamped in the sidewall. The codes on Consumer Report's tested tires, E3 3512, 3612, and 5012, indicate that the tires were built at the Yellow Sea tire factory in Qingdao, Shandong, China, in August and December 2012, according to API. But Littrell stated that API made no such manufacturing run: