New 2009 2010 BMW Z4 - ZPOST - View Single Post

jpwolfe31 · 10-30-2012, 08:02 PM

This is a summary of the points I wanted to make at the arbitration. This document was reviewed at the arbitration hearing by the arbitrator. I also had a chance to present it as part of the hearing. It was faxed to BMW during the hearing to see if they wanted to participate.

Many thanks to all of the great posts here on the cracked wheels. Almost all of this information came from Bimmerpost!

______________________________

October 11, 2012

Vehicle: 2009 BMW Z4

Summary of Presentation of Customer

1. Normal Road Conditions. Roads are not uniform - they have minor defects such as expansion joints, pavement transitions, man hole covers, etc. However, most cars operate on our roads in the US without issue as they have a suspension system to absorb these normal day to day shocks. The wheels and tires are an integral part of the suspension. The tire compresses, the wheel takes part of the load from the sidewall of the tire and passes it to the control arm, which in turn passes this to the springs and shock absorbers. Each part of the suspension needs to perform to prevent the suspension system from failing.

2. BMW Z4s Have High Rate of Wheel Failure. On the Z4, BMW wheels with run flat tires have a very high rate of failure in the rear due to bending and cracking. This has been reported extensively in BMW on-line forums (Exhibit A):

Wheel failures on the Z4 have been attributable to the following:
a. Larger 19 inch wheels with less sidewall.
b. Run-flat tires with very hard sidewalls that transmit more force to the wheels (btw, these sidewalls are so hard that they allow the car to drive without air in the tires for up to 30 miles at highway speeds).
c. Negative rear wheel camber of at least 2% which puts considerably more load on the inside edge of the rear wheels where wheel failure almost always occurs.
d. Most importantly, wheels that have not been reinforced to take these additional loads.

3. BMW Style 296 Wheels Cracking. The 296 style wheels when used on the Z4 are far more apt to crack than other style wheels. Especially the rear wheels. This is the most reported style of cracked wheels on the BMW forum. I doubt there are many Z4s with 296 wheels that have not had one or both rear wheels fail. Some report up to 8 failures.

There are reports that the 296 wheels that BMW is using to replace bent and cracked wheels have been redesigned with thicker rims to help prevent wheel failure (Exhibit B).

296 wheels were a $1200 upgrade option on this Z4 when purchased for $65,000 in 2009. These wheels are no longer offered by BMW on new vehicles. Given the upgrade fee charged for these wheels, it is reasonable to expect that the wheels would have been made stronger to absorb the increased loads of stiff run flat tires with less sidewall than on the smaller 18 inch wheels.

4. Discovery of Wheel Failure. Reports of frequent cracking led to my regular inspection of the 296 wheels on the vehicle. When I noticed cracks on Saturday, August 18, I took the vehicle into BMW on the following Monday, August 20. BMW declined warranty coverage for the cracked wheels due to the fact that they found the wheels to be out of round or bent. BMW did not report by how much the wheels were out of round. However, it is most significant that BMW did not report any sign of impact on the tire, the wheel or the car. BMW quoted $1525 to replace just the two rear wheels.

I reported to BMW, that the vehicle had not had any impact other than through normal road travel. I also reported to BMW that there was no tire vibration or other indication that the wheels were out of round and that the vehicle ran great up to 70 mph. If the wheels were out of round, they were not affecting normal highway driving. The wheels themselves also show no sign of any impact.

Continuing to drive with cracked wheels is not an option as the cracks will increase in size over time and could result in sudden loss of tire air pressure through the wheel creating a safety hazard.

5. Cracking/Bending Distinction Without Merit. A wheel that easily bends is just as defective as a wheel that easily cracks. In both cases, the wheel is simply not strong enough. BMW is drawing this distinction only as a means to allow it to avoid its warranty obligations. The redesign of the replacement 296 wheels shows BMW’s efforts to strengthen the defective wheel design to prevent both bending and cracking.

6. BMW Has Burden of Proof. Given that there is a clear failure of the wheels, this failure should be covered under warranty absent a showing by BMW that the cause of the failure was a result of one of the applicable warranty exclusions - namely negligence, improper operation of the vehicle or accident (Exhibit C). BMW has offered no evidence of any negligence, improper operation of the vehicle or accident other than the failure of the wheel itself. Historically, when claims were made regarding cracked wheels, a dealership looked for signs of impact on the tire and on the wheel itself near the point of any crack. None of these impact signs exist on the wheels. This indicates there was no serious impact that caused wheel damage (such as a curb).

BMW's sole argument for not covering the wheels is that they are bent (although they do not even report by how much), and that this necessarily means they have suffered severe impact or some other serious road hazard. BMW has offered no evidence linking impacts to bending. Logically, bending and in time cracking can just as likely be the result of cumulative shocks from uneven pavement over time that would be considered normal for travel over US roads. The wheels, as part of the suspension, should be designed to be strong enough to absorb these normal shocks without failure.

BMW also tries to confuse the situation even further by noting that the air pressure of the vehicle tires was checked by the dealership. This is completely disingenuous on BMW’s part and as they note this routine air check is mandated by California law. There was no indication anywhere in the maintenance records that tire pressure was found to be low. Each wheel on the vehicle also has a tire pressure sensor that sends an alert if a low tire pressure is detected. BMW also states that the vehicle had not been in for service for 6,655 mile which is false. The vehicle had been in to the dealer for a repair to its convertible top on July 12, 2012 and for an oil change and wheel alignment on July 24, 2012. Tire pressure was checked at both times.

In sum, BMW has the burden of proof with respect to the denial of warranty claims (Exhibit D) and BMW has not demonstrated that the wheel failures fall within the warranty exclusion of negligence, improper operation of the vehicle or accident.

7. BMW Takes Contrary Position in the UK. In the UK, BMW initially took the position of not covering cracked wheels under warranty if the wheels were found to be bent or out of round by more than 3mm. On a wheel that is 482 mm in diameter, this is less than 1%. One can see how obviously arbitrary this standard was. BMW has since revised this position and now covers bent or cracked wheels under warranty absent any clear visual sign of impact damage (Exhibit E). Since the cars sold in the UK and in the US have identical style 296 wheels, this is the right position for BMW to take in the US as well. This position is also consistent with the approach that has been used historically to determine the cause of wheel damage.

8. Remedy. The 296 wheels on the vehicle should be replaced by other 19 inch BMW wheels that are stronger or with 18 inch wheels (with tires) that are less likely to fail given the wider sidewall. Just replacing the two rear wheels with the same 296 style wheel will not solve the problem. The cost to replace four wheels as quoted by the BMW dealership would be $3050. I assume this replacement cost would be about the same if other BMW wheels were used that are similar to the defective 296 wheels but stronger.

Recognizing that replacing just the two rear wheels with the same defective 296 wheels would not make economic sense for either BMW or me since they would continuously need replacement, and needing to drive the vehicle, I replaced all of the wheels and tires with aftermarket 18 inch wheels with non-runflat tires at a cost of $2,364 (Exhibit F). This is the best overall solution for correcting the wheel failure problem on the Z4. However, these wheels and tires do diminish the value of the vehicle due to the fact that the vehicle no longer has BMW OEM wheels or run-flat tires, both of which are perceived as positives by buyers.

BMW should pay $2,364 to compensate me for the cost of replacing the wheels, which is less than the $3050 BMW quoted to replace the wheels.

__________________________

At the end of the hearing, the arbitrator said she would need to wait to hear back on this from BMW since they were not present. At this point, I did not have much expectation that the arbitration would be fair.

10-30-2012, 08:02 PM	#3
jpwolfe31 Private 7 Rep 60 Posts Drives: 2009 Z4 35i Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: San Francisco Bay Area iTrader: (0)	Summary of Our Arbitration Presentation This is a summary of the points I wanted to make at the arbitration. This document was reviewed at the arbitration hearing by the arbitrator. I also had a chance to present it as part of the hearing. It was faxed to BMW during the hearing to see if they wanted to participate. Many thanks to all of the great posts here on the cracked wheels. Almost all of this information came from Bimmerpost! ______________________________ October 11, 2012 Vehicle: 2009 BMW Z4 Summary of Presentation of Customer 1. Normal Road Conditions. Roads are not uniform - they have minor defects such as expansion joints, pavement transitions, man hole covers, etc. However, most cars operate on our roads in the US without issue as they have a suspension system to absorb these normal day to day shocks. The wheels and tires are an integral part of the suspension. The tire compresses, the wheel takes part of the load from the sidewall of the tire and passes it to the control arm, which in turn passes this to the springs and shock absorbers. Each part of the suspension needs to perform to prevent the suspension system from failing. 2. BMW Z4s Have High Rate of Wheel Failure. On the Z4, BMW wheels with run flat tires have a very high rate of failure in the rear due to bending and cracking. This has been reported extensively in BMW on-line forums (Exhibit A): Wheel failures on the Z4 have been attributable to the following: a. Larger 19 inch wheels with less sidewall. b. Run-flat tires with very hard sidewalls that transmit more force to the wheels (btw, these sidewalls are so hard that they allow the car to drive without air in the tires for up to 30 miles at highway speeds). c. Negative rear wheel camber of at least 2% which puts considerably more load on the inside edge of the rear wheels where wheel failure almost always occurs. d. Most importantly, wheels that have not been reinforced to take these additional loads. 3. BMW Style 296 Wheels Cracking. The 296 style wheels when used on the Z4 are far more apt to crack than other style wheels. Especially the rear wheels. This is the most reported style of cracked wheels on the BMW forum. I doubt there are many Z4s with 296 wheels that have not had one or both rear wheels fail. Some report up to 8 failures. There are reports that the 296 wheels that BMW is using to replace bent and cracked wheels have been redesigned with thicker rims to help prevent wheel failure (Exhibit B). 296 wheels were a $1200 upgrade option on this Z4 when purchased for $65,000 in 2009. These wheels are no longer offered by BMW on new vehicles. Given the upgrade fee charged for these wheels, it is reasonable to expect that the wheels would have been made stronger to absorb the increased loads of stiff run flat tires with less sidewall than on the smaller 18 inch wheels. 4. Discovery of Wheel Failure. Reports of frequent cracking led to my regular inspection of the 296 wheels on the vehicle. When I noticed cracks on Saturday, August 18, I took the vehicle into BMW on the following Monday, August 20. BMW declined warranty coverage for the cracked wheels due to the fact that they found the wheels to be out of round or bent. BMW did not report by how much the wheels were out of round. However, it is most significant that BMW did not report any sign of impact on the tire, the wheel or the car. BMW quoted $1525 to replace just the two rear wheels. I reported to BMW, that the vehicle had not had any impact other than through normal road travel. I also reported to BMW that there was no tire vibration or other indication that the wheels were out of round and that the vehicle ran great up to 70 mph. If the wheels were out of round, they were not affecting normal highway driving. The wheels themselves also show no sign of any impact. Continuing to drive with cracked wheels is not an option as the cracks will increase in size over time and could result in sudden loss of tire air pressure through the wheel creating a safety hazard. 5. Cracking/Bending Distinction Without Merit. A wheel that easily bends is just as defective as a wheel that easily cracks. In both cases, the wheel is simply not strong enough. BMW is drawing this distinction only as a means to allow it to avoid its warranty obligations. The redesign of the replacement 296 wheels shows BMW’s efforts to strengthen the defective wheel design to prevent both bending and cracking. 6. BMW Has Burden of Proof. Given that there is a clear failure of the wheels, this failure should be covered under warranty absent a showing by BMW that the cause of the failure was a result of one of the applicable warranty exclusions - namely negligence, improper operation of the vehicle or accident (Exhibit C). BMW has offered no evidence of any negligence, improper operation of the vehicle or accident other than the failure of the wheel itself. Historically, when claims were made regarding cracked wheels, a dealership looked for signs of impact on the tire and on the wheel itself near the point of any crack. None of these impact signs exist on the wheels. This indicates there was no serious impact that caused wheel damage (such as a curb). BMW's sole argument for not covering the wheels is that they are bent (although they do not even report by how much), and that this necessarily means they have suffered severe impact or some other serious road hazard. BMW has offered no evidence linking impacts to bending. Logically, bending and in time cracking can just as likely be the result of cumulative shocks from uneven pavement over time that would be considered normal for travel over US roads. The wheels, as part of the suspension, should be designed to be strong enough to absorb these normal shocks without failure. BMW also tries to confuse the situation even further by noting that the air pressure of the vehicle tires was checked by the dealership. This is completely disingenuous on BMW’s part and as they note this routine air check is mandated by California law. There was no indication anywhere in the maintenance records that tire pressure was found to be low. Each wheel on the vehicle also has a tire pressure sensor that sends an alert if a low tire pressure is detected. BMW also states that the vehicle had not been in for service for 6,655 mile which is false. The vehicle had been in to the dealer for a repair to its convertible top on July 12, 2012 and for an oil change and wheel alignment on July 24, 2012. Tire pressure was checked at both times. In sum, BMW has the burden of proof with respect to the denial of warranty claims (Exhibit D) and BMW has not demonstrated that the wheel failures fall within the warranty exclusion of negligence, improper operation of the vehicle or accident. 7. BMW Takes Contrary Position in the UK. In the UK, BMW initially took the position of not covering cracked wheels under warranty if the wheels were found to be bent or out of round by more than 3mm. On a wheel that is 482 mm in diameter, this is less than 1%. One can see how obviously arbitrary this standard was. BMW has since revised this position and now covers bent or cracked wheels under warranty absent any clear visual sign of impact damage (Exhibit E). Since the cars sold in the UK and in the US have identical style 296 wheels, this is the right position for BMW to take in the US as well. This position is also consistent with the approach that has been used historically to determine the cause of wheel damage. 8. Remedy. The 296 wheels on the vehicle should be replaced by other 19 inch BMW wheels that are stronger or with 18 inch wheels (with tires) that are less likely to fail given the wider sidewall. Just replacing the two rear wheels with the same 296 style wheel will not solve the problem. The cost to replace four wheels as quoted by the BMW dealership would be $3050. I assume this replacement cost would be about the same if other BMW wheels were used that are similar to the defective 296 wheels but stronger. Recognizing that replacing just the two rear wheels with the same defective 296 wheels would not make economic sense for either BMW or me since they would continuously need replacement, and needing to drive the vehicle, I replaced all of the wheels and tires with aftermarket 18 inch wheels with non-runflat tires at a cost of $2,364 (Exhibit F). This is the best overall solution for correcting the wheel failure problem on the Z4. However, these wheels and tires do diminish the value of the vehicle due to the fact that the vehicle no longer has BMW OEM wheels or run-flat tires, both of which are perceived as positives by buyers. BMW should pay $2,364 to compensate me for the cost of replacing the wheels, which is less than the $3050 BMW quoted to replace the wheels. __________________________ At the end of the hearing, the arbitrator said she would need to wait to hear back on this from BMW since they were not present. At this point, I did not have much expectation that the arbitration would be fair.
	Appreciate 0 Quote