Question Rettroband - are they worth it?

[Joe Hogan]

Here is some very useful Information and Data from Michelin (no sources of info to date has discussed mileage limitations)

https://www.michelinb2b.com/wps/b2bcontent/PDF/RV_Tires_Brochure.pdf

https://www.michelinb2b.com/wps/b2bcontent/PDF/TB_1001_Runflat.pdf

https://www.michelinb2b.com/wps/b2bcontent/PDF/TB_Service_Life_RV_Tires.pdf

 

[Richpatty]

People overreact and if X had a blowout at 15K miles, people would take that one data point and replace tires at 15K miles. I'm approaching 7 years and 60K miles (knock on wood) and in January will be replacing tires. The Michelin guidance is supposedly good to 7 years (mileage not a factor) and inspect until 10. However, my treads are becoming a factor as well so that needs to be in the equation. I digress...how many data points would be needed to draw a conclusion? People are seeing a sum total of 2 maybe 3 blowouts and concluding this is a major issue. We don't know the numbers or the stats but we ALL FEAR this issue is the most relevant point. It has been my biggest fear and yeah, I may very well get RettroBands as well but educating is a big part of this too, vetting things out. Tire inspections, care and use are probably the most valuable aspects of success....my opinion.

I don’t know many folks….but including Scott on here and two other folks who we camp with have all had front blowouts…. Two of them leaving the road after the blowout. That is really high percentage for me and has me rethinking a lot of things.

 

[Scotttkd2]

Just to add to the discussion but I can't t help but think is also a factor here is designed load of the RV and the selected tires. I have been concerned since getting my KS and finding out that my RV front end is weighted at the upper limit of the 275 size tires it came with. After getting it weighed and checking the Michelin tire air pressure guides I have to run at the full 130psi max cold pressure to support the weight. It seems to me a larger tire capacity speced in would allow for some margin on load capacity. Could that have been a factor in my blowout?? Rears are well under the highest load rating of the 275's but the front are right at the max?? Doesn't make sense to me, and not something the average "consumer" is probably going to look at when shopping for an RV. I believe it is a fair assumption that the vehicle components would be designed to handle the vehicle weight as it is sold to the consumer. Is it common for front end weights to be at the max of the tire ratings that are installed?? I am rambling a bit here but truly interested in hearing from you other newmar owners how your front ends weights to tire max load compare. BTW, for those wondering scale weights indicate I am well under the max vehicle weight, but the front is right at the max.

 

[turbopilot]

Just to add to the discussion but I can't t help but think is also a factor here is designed load of the RV and the selected tires. I have been concerned since getting my KS and finding out that my RV front end is weighted at the upper limit of the 275 size tires it came with. After getting it weighed and checking the Michelin tire air pressure guides I have to run at the full 130psi max cold pressure to support the weight. It seems to me a larger tire capacity speced in would allow for some margin on load capacity. Could that have been a factor in my blowout?? Rears are well under the highest load rating of the 275's but the front are right at the max?? Doesn't make sense to me, and not something the average "consumer" is probably going to look at when shopping for an RV. It is a natural assumption that the vehicle components would be designed to handle the vehicle weight as it is sold to the consumer. Is it common for front end weights to be at the max of the tire ratings that are installed?? I am rambling a bit here but truly interested in hearing from you other newmar owners how your front ends weights to tire max load compare.

Do you have front end load weights for your coach. As I posted earlier my 2018 NA3343 was running right at the limit with that "light" 360 engine in the back.

 

[Scotttkd2]

@Turbo....just edited my post, answer is yes. Scaled GVW is well under design specs, front is right at the top limit and requires the max air pressure to carry the weigh I scaled out at. 130 is also the recommended PSI on the placard at the driver seat

 

[Neal]

And if your decision about using Rettrobands is in anyway economically driven it gets pretty silly in these high end coaches when many people spend $4,100 on custom chrome trim kits. I am going to get them and wait for the data.

You would be silly NOT to get them for obvious reasons but one of which is you have a new coach ordered from NIRVC delivering to Lewisville, etc. etc. Everything aligns for you to get your new coach with them. Quite frankly I don't know why NIRVC doesn't just include them with all coach purchases from them.

I'm due for new tires and with that said I will likely have new fronts installed at NIRVC and bite this bullet. I'm checking to see if the newest and nearest NIRVC is capable and trustworthy of doing so (Washington D.C.) assuming I survive the drive in Washington DC - why would you ever put a dealership here????? Damn! The alternative is Atlanta, which isn't a location that gets great reviews, after my FL Gaffney visit in January as I plan to head south so it aligns.

I'm hoping NIRVC will accept an iPhone 12 Pro Max trade for one RettroBand!

 

[Neemer]

@Neal , you won’t have to dodge DC bullets to get to their location in Manassas. 95 north to PW Parkway. I have no experience with their service department, so I cannot offer any insight there.

 

[MemoriesByTheMile]

As Scott mentioned, I too wonder if the design and weight distribution of the coach are pushing too far with the tire specs.
Then, once a blow out occurs, how is the chassis design impacting the ability of the driver to maintain control of the coach and how is that lack of chassis control then impacting the driver’s ability to maintain control of their bowels?

My theory is that there could be design changes to the chassis to improve control during a blowout. Don’t have anything to back that up besides anecdotal points.

Beyond the control of the chassis, there is also the IMPRESSION of control/pucker factor. An A-Class chassis design, with the driver out in front of the steering wheels (dangling out on a limb beyond the fulcrum point), will feel much more movement ina blowout than a driver who is sitting between the front steering wheel and rear axles.
This pucker factor can also contribute to potential changes in reaction.

The retrobands (regardless of the pricing) can really help with the pucker factor as they prevent the driver (who is hanging beyond the fulcrum) from feeling a huge drop in a blowout. This was one thing I noticed in the video that NIRVC published showing the blowout and how they maintained control. Inside, they didn’t see any big change.

Also, as Scott mentioned, it is bad design to put key chassis controls right around the tire, where those components can be disabled by a blowout. But will RV manufacturers make safety changes to the design? IMO, No they won’t.

The safety factor is one of the top 2 reasons we have a SuperC instead of the A class. Chose to trade indoor space and for safety. (But I do envy the maneuverability of the A class for the same indoor space)

 

[Neal]

More reason to consider LifePO4 batteries to get the weight off these front axles. Since I'm hemorrhaging money and the ER declined my visit to stop the bleeding, may as well continue! I'll be foreclosing on the lawn mower shed next.

 

[Richpatty]

As Scott mentioned, I too wonder if the design and weight distribution of the coach are pushing too far with the tire specs.
Then, once a blow out occurs, how is the chassis design impacting the ability of the driver to maintain control of the coach and how is that lack of chassis control then impacting the driver’s ability to maintain control of their bowels?

My theory is that there could be design changes to the chassis to improve control during a blowout. Don’t have anything to back that up besides anecdotal points.

Beyond the control of the chassis, there is also the IMPRESSION of control/pucker factor. An A-Class chassis design, with the driver out in front of the steering wheels (dangling out on a limb beyond the fulcrum point), will feel much more movement ina blowout than a driver who is sitting between the front steering wheel and rear axles.
This pucker factor can also contribute to potential changes in reaction.

The retrobands (regardless of the pricing) can really help with the pucker factor as they prevent the driver (who is hanging beyond the fulcrum) from feeling a huge drop in a blowout. This was one thing I noticed in the video that NIRVC published showing the blowout and how they maintained control. Inside, they didn’t see any big change.

Also, as Scott mentioned, it is bad design to put key chassis controls right around the tire, where those components can be disabled by a blowout. But will RV manufacturers make safety changes to the design? IMO, No they won’t.

The safety factor is one of the top 2 reasons we have a SuperC instead of the A class. Chose to trade indoor space and for safety. (But I do envy the maneuverability of the A class for the same indoor space)

I agree on all points…as I see it as the responsibility of making RVs less likely to have a blowout on the front falling on the manufacturers. They need to over-engineer the axel and put on beefier tires. How many times have we all seen front axels close to their weight limit?