Review on Nokian Tires Hakkapeliitta 9 185/65 R15 92T winter by Hana Klejov

Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9, Size: 225/50R17, Production date: 3318 Wear: practically none (indicator number 8 is visible), the spikes are all in place. Drove about 1000 km (run in about 700 km). I contacted technical support and the complaint was positively agreed to replace the tires. I thought how well the customer is taken care of and how good the service and support is, but it wasn’t there. They sent tires that look worse than defective and old (manufactured in 1618). The tires have dirt and, after washing, traces of paint and light spots are found, which may be the result of improper storage conditions or "aging" of the rubber compound. It is possible that the tires were coated with an agent (ink) to mask the "aging" of the rubber compound due to improper storage. Of course, subjectively, but the tires are stiffer than they were, and even if you run them in correctly, the probability of losing the spikes is maximum, which in the end can affect the warranty (such as "you don't care to drive and ruin tires"). And from all of the above, I have doubts about the safety of the issued tires. What those. support just unsubscribed "the requirement for tire replacement was fully met by the manufacturer. At the moment, the existing regulatory documents do not regulate tires with which production date should be issued instead of a claim. In this regard, the tires are shipped directly from the manufacturer's warehouse and they are also subject to the full manufacturing obligations of your previously purchased tires. The sidewall stiffness on issued tires is subjective and cannot be considered a manufacturing defect on the tyre. The absence of a bar code on the bead ring is not a production obligations. The presence of light shades, spots is not a characteristic property of the product and does not affect the performance of the tires. " Those. I understand it this way: "We have stale stock here, no one takes or buys, but take it under warranty. "