A good mate of mine just got pulled over this afternoon by the TOG in VIC and he has been given a Canary.........
Now it is not a full RWC but reinspection as he failed due to tyre coverage.
He is driving a Nissan Pathy with 31in tyres and even though the tread is covered by the flare the sidewall bulge is sticking outside the flare.
What is the go as not even the officer was sure but thought it would be better to Canary and check later.........
What is the go as the side wall bulge is just silly if tread is completely covered
Notice: We request that you don't just set up a new account at this time if you are a previous user.
If you used to be one of our moderators, please feel free to reach out to Chris via the facebook Outerlimits4x4 group and he will get you set back up with access should he need you.
If you used to be one of our moderators, please feel free to reach out to Chris via the facebook Outerlimits4x4 group and he will get you set back up with access should he need you.
Recovery:If you cannot access your old email address and don't remember your password, please click here to log a change of email address so you can do a password reset.
Flares ???
Moderators: toaddog, TWISTY, V8Patrol, Moderators
I thought it just needed to cover the tread, but thinking hurts...
Go hard or go home!!!
MU build here
MU build here
It would make sense, the flares are only really there to stop water spray blinding other drivers just like the mud flaps, and water spray comes from the tread not the side wall....fester2au wrote:Never been any different up here in Qld so don't see why it would down there. TYRE must not protrude outside the line of the body. Tread would not make any sense anyway
Go hard or go home!!!
MU build here
MU build here
Actually checked with VicRoads inquiry line ( email ) - the VSI indicates tread. Look at the camber of a fully loaded independent rear end Commodore and the sidewall protrudes past the guards - un-roadworthy from the factory - no.
Still trying to convince the police at the road side will be an exercise in futility - they will canary it and let you argue later. So IMO cover the sidewall to be safe.
Still trying to convince the police at the road side will be an exercise in futility - they will canary it and let you argue later. So IMO cover the sidewall to be safe.
( usual disclaimers )
It seemed like a much better idea when I started it than it does now.
It seemed like a much better idea when I started it than it does now.
MM, as you recall we had a thread about this on our Club forum and I thought the outcome was after looking at the relevant ADR's and contacting VicRoads etc. that the tyre section width when measured at the top of the tyre in the straight ahead position must be covered. VicRoads can't water down the ADR so if they are now saying treadwidth and the ADR hasn't changed then you would still be in the wrong.
[quote="4WD Stuff"]
I haven't quoted Grimbo because nobody takes him seriously :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: [/quote]
I haven't quoted Grimbo because nobody takes him seriously :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: [/quote]
Actually......your right cj! now that i think about it
The issue is with the interpretation of "tire section width".
VSI 26 - "the tire section width at the TOP of the tire must be covered"
ADR2300 has a tighter definition that defines "section width" as including the sidewalls and makes no confusing reference to "the top"
I questioned VicRoads directly about this - and was referred to VSI26 not the ADR but I think that later on the conclusion was reached that the VSI isn't clearly worded and open to interpretation.
And yet.....go load up an IRS Commodore and see the result - lots of camber which leaves the "section width at the top of the tire" covered but not the sidewall and bag at the bottom.
As I've said, you would be pushing it up hill to convince the police if they had pulled you over.....
The issue is with the interpretation of "tire section width".
VSI 26 - "the tire section width at the TOP of the tire must be covered"
ADR2300 has a tighter definition that defines "section width" as including the sidewalls and makes no confusing reference to "the top"
I questioned VicRoads directly about this - and was referred to VSI26 not the ADR but I think that later on the conclusion was reached that the VSI isn't clearly worded and open to interpretation.
And yet.....go load up an IRS Commodore and see the result - lots of camber which leaves the "section width at the top of the tire" covered but not the sidewall and bag at the bottom.
As I've said, you would be pushing it up hill to convince the police if they had pulled you over.....
( usual disclaimers )
It seemed like a much better idea when I started it than it does now.
It seemed like a much better idea when I started it than it does now.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests