For those interested in old cars.

[boxbrownie]

18 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Unless things have changed, what is forbidden is having 1 x crossply and 1 x radial. The make, and therefore tread pattern, can be different.

 

Not that I would ever recommend fitting different tyres on the same axle. In wet weather, different tread patterns give very different handling.

Things have changed 

[PhilJ W]

Before I retired I used to do a high mileage which meant two new tyres every year. With front wheel drive I had the part worn front tyres put on the back and the new tyres on the front. I had one puncture, on a rear tyre not long before I was due to renew the tyres so the best of the three tyres went in as the spare and the other two were replaced as above. No doubt the tyres that were removed were sold on as used but I have always been particular about the tyres on my cars.

[alastairq]

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/mot-inspection-manual-for-private-passenger-and-light-commercial-vehicles/5-axles-wheels-tyres-and-suspension#section-5-2-3

 

Mention is made of construction [and definition of 'construction' is also given.}....but not of differing tread patterns. Sizes are mentioned [but I have got away with a different size...probably as both the sizes were listed as 'standard' on that particular model..or the Mottyman didn't notice?]

 

Probable that if the tyre treads are considered to be extremely different, then the mottyman will give an 'advisory?'

Note the rules on tyre age?

 

Also, if there is doubt as to the age of the tyre, benefit of doubt given to vehicle presenter, with an 'advisory'...

 

[A bit like the driving tests...if there is doubt, then benefit of doubt given to candidate, but with an advisory noted.]

[Joseph_Pestell]

Yes, that document seems to confirm what I wrote earlier.

 

There are a lot of things in that document that give me cause for concern. Tyres are the most important component on a car. Need them to be right.

[MrWolf]

Some years ago when interest in classic vans took off, a number of people had to have it pointed out that you cannot legally fit 4 ply car tyres to a van (lots of people were fitting radials as they were cheaper and easier to find.) 6 ply tyres must be fitted, to comply with MOT regulations and more importantly, it can invalidate your insurance. Even a camper is still a van. It makes me wonder about all those very expensive Mini and Escort vans running on bling bling wheels.

[alastairq]

2 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

There are a lot of things in that document that give me cause for concern.

 Such as?

[BernardTPM]

3 hours ago, MrWolf said:

Some years ago when interest in classic vans took off, a number of people had to have it pointed out that you cannot legally fit 4 ply car tyres to a van ..... It makes me wonder about all those very expensive Mini and Escort vans running on bling bling wheels.

I assume that means the basically identical Mini Van and Mini Estate/Countryman/Traveller would need different tyres.

[PhilJ W]

5 hours ago, MrWolf said:

Some years ago when interest in classic vans took off, a number of people had to have it pointed out that you cannot legally fit 4 ply car tyres to a van (lots of people were fitting radials as they were cheaper and easier to find.) 6 ply tyres must be fitted, to comply with MOT regulations and more importantly, it can invalidate your insurance. Even a camper is still a van. It makes me wonder about all those very expensive Mini and Escort vans running on bling bling wheels.

 

2 hours ago, BernardTPM said:

I assume that means the basically identical Mini Van and Mini Estate/Countryman/Traveller would need different tyres.

I once had a Reliant Kitten van, about as light as you can get, just over half a ton in weight about two thirds that of a minivan.

[BernardTPM]

Ah, the Kitten. Another vehicle where the van and estate versions are practically identical save for windows and seats.

 

 

and in this case it has rear lghts off a late Escort van.

Edited March 31, 2022 by BernardTPM

[PhilJ W]

4 minutes ago, BernardTPM said:

Ah, the Kitten. Another vehicle where the van and estate versions are practically identical save for windows and seats.

 

 

and in this case it has rear lights off a late Escort van.

And a few other mods as well. Extractor vents, rear screen wash-wipe and possibly new front lights.

[BernardTPM]

Yes, it has been customised. There's another Kitten around locally, the saloon verison in very 1970s bright orange that is more original, but so far it has eluded the camera, though I did see it earlier this month.

Edited July 27, 2021 by BernardTPM

[MrWolf]

3 hours ago, BernardTPM said:

I assume that means the basically identical Mini Van and Mini Estate/Countryman/Traveller would need different tyres.

 

In a word, yes.

 

[johnlambert]

On 25/07/2021 at 14:04, MrWolf said:

That Austin A40 Sports is a rare beast, I would quite fancy owning one of those. Although I would keep the hood down, it's not the neatest I've seen. 

Having seen an A40 Sports at close quarters with the hood up, I would describe the fit as approximate.  Maybe it was in need of adjustment but there were gaps around the tops of the quarterlights that I don't think any adjustment could have fixed.  You could clearly see daylight with the hood clamped to the windscreen header rail.  I think the car had been restored but maybe it was one of those restorations that looks fancy but doesn't pay any heed to the idea of using the car (to be fair, the car was in a museum so maybe use wasn't a priority)?

[Captain Cuttle]

4 hours ago, BernardTPM said:

I assume that means the basically identical Mini Van and Mini Estate/Countryman/Traveller would need different tyres.

My Minivan had radials.

[boxbrownie]

8 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

Yes, that document seems to confirm what I wrote earlier.

 

There are a lot of things in that document that give me cause for concern. Tyres are the most important component on a car. Need them to be right.

Exactly if the letter of the law is followed you could have a just legal Eco low resistance tyre on one wheel and a brand new off road deep tread mud plugger tyre on the other side of the axle, just as long as both are radial and the same size.

Edited July 26, 2021 by boxbrownie

[alastairq]

Indeed. But the Law places the onus on the driver to drive with care & attention. It isn't the mix of tyre treads which is ''dangerous.' It's the driver refusing, or failing, to  exercise consideration for that mix of tyres which is the danger.

 

One can, lawfully, apply all sorts of modifications to a vehicle, which will reduce the manufacturer's intended driving characteristics [or, improve on them].

The sad case of an individual who modified the suspension on his LandRover, but failed to realise that, things like speed limits, are 'limits' pure & simple..and that with the modifications he had conducted , his vehicle needed to have a self-imposed much lower speed limit. 

The result was, he lost control of his vehicle when driving along  a road which bordered a deep river.  The Landrover went in, and his two children, who were in the back, drowned.

The driver was prosecuted for causing death by dangerous driving. There was nothing 'wrong' or unlawful about his {suspension} mods, despite what the general [but ignorant] public thought about modified vehicles.....It was the driver's failure to apply a  self imposed , lower speed limit to his vehicle [and kept within it] that was the issue at stake.

The Military always impose their own, lower, speed limits on certain military vehicles which reflect considerations like, modifications, specialist tyres, etc.  For this very reason. 

 

What really can be 'worse' than driving around on a spacesaver tyre? When all the others are very different in characteristics?  Makers paint speed limits on spacesaver wheels simply because they understand the ordinary ''driver'' hasn't a clue about their responsibilities and duties in Law, regarding their vehicles...or their licences. 

Despite 'ignorance' being no excuse [in the eyes of the Law]

 

But then, what does one expect when a driving licence is simply viewed as a convenient, private, travel pass?

 I have no problems whatsoever with chinese ditchfinders [having never yet found a ditch..or one I could not self-recover from!]

 

But then, I don't drive in a manner that would push any of my tyres near to their limits...Tyres may be seen as 'important' in some eyes, but to me, I place zero faith in them..... I have rarely been disappointed with the cheapest of tyres.. I have often been disappointed with the expensive, and famous, makes.

Bald tyres aren't necessarily 'unsafe'...on a dry day, their grip will often exceed that of the most expensive make of tyre....

There are too many out there driving, with the attitude of ''let's see what they'll do!!'' Then they moan when they find the limits...

 

 

Edited July 26, 2021 by alastairq

[PhilJ W]

I have seen cars with spacesaver wheels being driven at far higher speeds than the recommended 50 MPH. What is more I know of a few cars that have been driven around on such wheels for several months. When I had a flat tyre I got it replaced as soon as I could (within 48 hours) and used the car as little as possible in the meantime.

[MrWolf]

2 hours ago, Captain Cuttle said:

My Minivan had radials.

 

That isn't an issue, although older Mini's had cross-ply tyres and later radials, it's the number of plys in the wall of the tyre that is important. A 6 ply tyre is reinforced to take heavier loads and also counter flexing on corners. A 4 ply, designed for cars is more likely to break up if overloaded and flex too much on cornering, affecting the handling or causing a breakaway. I have had a van fail it's test because it had two car tyres on it.

[chuffinghell]

 

Edited July 26, 2021 by chuffinghell

[Joseph_Pestell]

19 hours ago, alastairq said:

 Such as?

 

It shows that there are all sorts of ways of fitting incompatible tyres and yet still passing the MOT. For example, the asymettric tread on the wrong way round which, if mounted such that the examiner can not see an indication of which way the wheel should turn, gets a pass with advisory.

[alastairq]

5 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

gets a pass with advisory.

 The MoT let-out clause?

 

Whilst not actually unlawful, or indeed, outright dangerous [see my previous reference to driver's duties & responsibilities?], the DVSA have at least 'made the vehicle presenter aware?'

Aware that  the issue is, in fact, recorded officially, in other words.

 

The use of asymmetric tyres does beg the question, as to what one does, as a driver, if one gets a puncture in one tyre, but the spare is 'mounted' in the opposite direction?

The same problem arises with mono-directional tyres [usually rough-surface tyres] as well.

The military faced this issue with some of their [LGV, mostly] types long ago.  The JSP's required drivers to fit the spare [objective, to continue & complete the journey]...regardless of what 'side' it was fitted. Then, at the earliest opportunity, have the spare and the incorrectly-sided tyre replaced.  [Following a puncture, it was the duty of the military driver to acquire a new spare tyre ASAP. Whether they did or do, is not the issue, for that is something the driver concerned would have to answer for if another puncture was acquired, and the spare had not been made good, at that earliest opportunity.

 

Of course, today's 'civilian' drivers have the option of throwing their hands up in shock & horror, and bleating on facebook, about 'it shouldn't-be-allowed' and 'snotmifault'..

 

A vehicle is only ''dangerous'' if someone  else gets in & drives it.  

[alastairq]

At this juncture [still on tyres] I'd like to present an observation which is not intended to be racist or anything-ist [mods please note, but kindly inform me before banning  my presence, to save me messing with my computer, and complaining to BT?}

Recently, [in York, as it happens] the Police [and doubtless the DVSA as well as the York City Council]...discovered, in checks, that an awfully large number of taxis [private hire, probably, or minicabs?]....had tyres which not only were illegal, but actually right down to the canvass, and beyond...some even running around on flat tyres.

 

Now, normally a UK driver would at least try to do something about the situation on their vehicle before it got  as bad.....or would at least consider the safety aspect, one would hope?

However, I feel one has to look at the national origins of  these minicab & PH drivers, to see how different  attitudes might prevail?

Looking to see what is considered 'normal' as far as tyres were concerned, in places like, Bulgaria/Roumania, Afghanistan, etc, where a lot of the 'taxi' drivers hail from?

They are simply applying 'standards,' which in countries such as i've mentioned, and others, are considered to be 'normal'..especially outside of the glossy cities? If the car still works, in other words, why worry about a bit of canvass showing?

These folk are only applying standards they have always considered 'normal'....Perhaps they cannot 'see' our own points of view on the matter? After all, they haven't actually crashed, or hurt customers, have they?  [Which has to be the criteria when considering 'safety'.....not what 'might' have happened if circumstances had been different?    After all, we all consider ourselves as 'safe' drivers if we manage to get from A to B in one piece, don't we?}

 

The attitudes towards driving, and vehicle standards is more & more being dictated by what is deemed acceptable in other parts of the world. Where sheer economics dictate vehicle & driving standards?

Which ought to be a worrying aspect to those of us who frequently inhabit our crowded public highways?

 

The recent case of a VW Golf being stopped, locally, sporting no tyre at all, and severe overcrowding inside [kids, adults, all crammed in]...the driver possibly not concerned, as that was 'normal' behaviour when getting from A to B, ''back home?''  Possibly wondering why the Police were taking such a  high handed attitude here, when such things would be ignored  in other parts of the world?

It must be difficult to adapt one's culture in regard to vehicles and driving, when confronted with the UK's somewhat strict, and possibly over-bearing Laws concerning safety and road use?  

The Police doubtless have  difficult problem when confronted by someone who has been made to realise they have broken the Law, but yet, doesn't fully understand what all the fuss is about? 

 

Differing ideas of  'normality,' perhaps?

 

[PhilJ W]

It may have changed since but a few years ago in the US there is a possibility that the driver in the car alongside you could be only 12 years old or blind or could never have taken a drivers test or be uninsured. This is because each of the fifty states has its own road traffic laws. 

[Dunsignalling]

Interestingly, my own car, which has the specified 225/50 x 17 tyres, has a "spacesaver" spare that is 195/60  x 16, which clearly doesn't save all that much space!

 

However, the tyre is clearly marked as being uni-rotational, so I suspect it is a deliberate strategy on the part of the manufacturer (Skoda in this case, but presumably a policy that would be decided at VAG level) to avoid having an asymmetrical spare rotating in the wrong direction. As with all such wheels/tyres (and despite being R rated) it has a 50mph speed restriction but, unlike the majority, no limitation as to mileage. 

 

John

Edited July 27, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[alastairq]

34 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

no limitation as to mileage

 Neither is there one when booking an MoT test.

[The Law recognises that there never can be one, when applying rules to the mainland UK as a whole.]

 

Hence it is perfectly 'legal' to buy a car without a current MoT,  in London [or, more cheaply, in Wales] and drive it home to Scotland, providing one pre-books an MoT test in Scotland.

Mind, before setting off, it is wise to remember the driver's responsibilities as far as roadworthiness is concerned. In all its aspects.

 

 For, not having a current MoT doesn't mean a vehicle is unroadworthy.   

 

Equally, having a current [even a fresh] MoT doesn't mean the vehicle is roadworthy.

 

I have often been disappointed when folk pontificated about the MoT exemption for old motors.

Of how the exemption will allow any old wreck to be legally driven on the roads?

 

Which, of course, will be unlawful, if that wreck is actually unroadworthy for some reason or other.

 

Therefore the above argument is fallacious.

 

[Being without a valid MoT is a minor traffic offence.....Being unroadworthy is another matter entirely]

 

Indeed, it is perfectly legal to drive a vehicle on the public roads, without it having a registration plate [if one has not been issued]

 

How many folk out there inthe big wide  wotsit would declare such a thing as 'illegal?'