Page 4 - RB-62-12-3

EDITORIAL
Can Retreading Stick its Head in the Sand?
For the second issue in a row we lead not with news but an update on retread tyre homologation and labelling. We are doing this to support BIPAVER’s ReTYre project and to do our part in getting the message across to as many European retreaders as is possible. This will impact upon your business, one way or another. Retreaders can still get involved by talking to your local political representatives, government officials and trade associations to ensure that the consequences of this legislation are clear. If you are not a member of your national retread association, you can support their efforts by joining their membership and helping them meet the cost of funding the ReTYre project.
The news in the previous issue about tyre labelling and the need for the retread sector to be able to quantify the performance of retread tyres resulted in a mixed reaction from the retread market. For some players there was a real concern that this was the end of the road, from others the response was, “We will deal with the issue when it arises.”
Without taking an alarmist position there seemed to be a considerable gap, nay, a chasm, in understanding of the potential implications of the coming requirements for retreads to meet environmental standards. Almost every retreader attending the Essen show had some involvement in truck tyre retreading yet the majority seemed unaware of the risk, or at least they had no desire to show any alarm. It was unclear whether this was a true lack of concern, or a case of que sera sera, or somewhere in between, perhaps that good old fall-back position of “someone will deal with this”.
There are currently two projects running with the aim of addressing this issue, one being overseen by the European Tyre and Rubber Manufacturers Association (ETRMA), which represents the mainstream tyre manufacturers and their licensed operations, for example MRT and Bandag retreaders, and some smaller players too. Then there is the BIPAVER ReTYre project funded largely by European money matched by BIPAVER member organisations’ funding.
The aim for both projects is for the studies to research and quantify the impact of tyre casings on the ultimate performance of the retreaded tyre. It would be wrong to say that no-one knows what the impact of the casing is, because the tyre manufacturers invest millions in R&D developing casings and improving tyre performance,
performance that can be manipulated through the manner of construction of the casing and the materials used in the casings. So, the tyre manufacturers have a head start on these projects as they already know the performance of their casings when new. There is also a pretty good chance that they have a very good idea of their own casing performance when they have had their first life. Centres such as Goodyear’s Luxembourg operation constantly run tests on tyres to evaluate materials and performance.
ultimately there may be room for negotiation in how retreads are assessed, there may be a possible Plan B after all).
The independent retreaders, whether they are smaller operations, or larger businesses such as, Bandvulc, Insa Turbo or Reifen Ihle have no such luxury. Unless they have somehow been granted access to tyre manufacturers hard earned data, they know very little about how a casing performs or how its capability alters after 100,000
technology and the data, exchanging process data enabling a wider pool of tyres to be retreaded, but then again, if the tyre manufacturers gain almost complete control of the retread market then why would they give away their advantage by transferring data? (Which, actually may be illegal under EU competition rules if it excluded competition from smaller retreaders). Whatever the solution, it is reasonable to presume that the tyre manufacturers will continue to develop retreading programmes. However, in Europe most countries have thriving retread industries with a range of small to large operations, many involved in export of their products across borders within and outside the EU. These retreaders
are faced with the dilemma of being excluded from the big boys’ club, and not being able to find the data they need to stay in business by verifying the performance of their retreads.
One of the most concerned individuals that we have spoken to is Michael Schwamlein, formerly of Kraiburg and now with Rema Tip Top. Michael becomes quite animated on the subject and is patently frustrated by the lack of understanding. “If we cannot find a solution, then quite simply there is no more retreading. The label issue is nothing to worry about. If we cannot identify the impact that the casing has on the retread then we are dead in the water, we are finished. We must do the research and we must look for the way that we can create a standard from which we can measure performance. It is clear that if we fail to find the data that leads to a standard we are finished. If we find that there is no standard casing performance, that ever y casing is different, then we cannot possibly meet the requirements for wet grip, rolling resistance and pass by noise, we are finished, there is no more retreading.”
Holger Dux, Sales and Marketing at Kraiburg was sanguine about the matter, “We are participating partners in the project but if we cannot identify the impact of the casing on the retread then we have some big problem. I don’t know where we go. We are not retreaders but we supply materials and whilst we can make the treads and the compounds that the industry needs, if the industry cannot define the casing, then what?” - This perhaps explains Kraiburg’s move
to develop a new more economic method of OTR retreading, as outlined in the Kraiburg feature from Reifen Essen, as the company moves to create its own Plan B.
Michelin do the same and so too do Conti, Bridgestone and Pirelli, whilst Yokohama, Hankook, Toyo and many others all study their tyres, and importantly, their competitors’ tyres constantly to ensure that they remain competitive. They will already have considerable data available on casing performance, and it is worth noting that the tyre majors are now investing in modern retread plants, so they have clearly not given up on retreading. (Also, there is an alternative process being finalised in the USA, which bases the retread performance on a buffed down NEW Yokohama casing. So,
miles, and how this might impact on rolling resistance, wet grip, or pass by noise.
So, with the tyre manufacturers getting their houses in order, and some investing heavily in retreading, Goodyear and Conti both developing retreading plants and keeping retreading closer to home than previously, it would be a reasonable presumption to make that there is a confidence in the new tyre industry that they, at least, can meet the requirements, if only by testing their own product and by specifying their own casings for retreading. Although, there would be little to prevent those with the
4 Retreading Business