That is a badly written article with contradictory statements that creates more confusion rather than setting the record straight in my opinion. Below is an example.
First it states;
In fact, most tire companies put the "sell by" date somewhere out around five years from the date of manufacture. So unless you don't expect to wear the tire out within five years from the date that's stamped on the sidewall, don't sweat it.
The first part of this statement states that
In fact, most tire companies put the "sell by" date somewhere out around five years from the date of manufacture.
This suggests that the manufacturer's recommendation is that the tire can safely be sold up to five years from the date of manufacture, nothing to do what its calendar life expectancy is.
Presumably a manufacturer of tires fully understands that anyone purchasing their tire up to five years from when they manufactured it is doing so with the intention of mounting and using it until it is worn to limits, otherwise why would they buy it in the first place. This implies that it is perfectly safe to use after it is five years from the date of manufacture.
The second part states;
So unless you don't expect to wear the tire out within five years from the date that's stamped on the sidewall, don't sweat it.
They just wrote that the five years is a
sell by date, not a replace by date. Now they are saying as long as you replace it within five years from the date of manufacture, don't sweat it.
Which is it, a five year window where it can be in storage before being sold, or a five year window during which it is safe to use and after which it must be replaced?
In the very next paragraph it states;
Again, most tire manufacturers advise replacing a tire after it's around five years old.
Using
Again implies that they are repeating what they already wrote, but they never wrote that a tire needs to be replaced at five years. They clearly stated that the manufacturers recommend a
sell by date of five years, not a replace by date.
