MG-Cars.info

Welcome to our Site for MG, Triumph and Austin-Healey Car Information.

Parts

MG parts spares and accessories are available for MG T Series (TA, MG TB, MG TC, MG TD, MG TF), Magnette, MGA, Twin cam, MGB, MGBGT, MGC, MGC GT, MG Midget, Sprite and other MG models from British car spares company LBCarCo.

MG Midget and Sprite Technical - legal tyres

thought it best to start a new thread as the other one was getting unwieldy.
so.
To be legal, does all of the tyre have to fall within the bodywork or is it just the top?
The reason I'm asking is that - with the Frontline suspension, my wheels now have a distinct negative camber so If I was to use 6" wheels with 165 tyres, while the top of the wheel would be within the wheel arch, I suspect the bottom might just be outside.
graeme jackson

Hi
A tyre projecting from the bodywork can constitute an offence under S40 RTA 1988 as it could injure someone.
If injury was caused by the tyre then is possible that an offence of dangerous driving may be proven if it would be obvious to a competant and careful driver that the vehicle in its current state would be dangerous. Dangerous refers to either injury to the person or serious damage to property.
Alan
Alan Anstead

I suspect that Graeme's tyres would be deemed to be legal because my understanding of the law is that no tread should be visible when viewed from directly above. Having said that, how many Minis do you see with spacers fitted that push the wheels way outside the arch all round the tyre?

Bernie.
b higginson

Like Bernie, I believe it's the tread - no tread should be visible from directly above the wheel.

With the top inside as you describe should be perfectly OK.
Rob Armstrong

Graeme
This really isn't the place to ask a question on law as you will get too many opinions most of which are totally wrong.
Alan
Alan Anstead

Well I've had a look, and I can't find anything absolutely properly nailed down about it. As close as I can get is in the C&U regs - Section 63 -(1) states "Subject to paragraphs (3) and (5), every vehicle to which this regulation applies shall be equipped with wings or other similar fittings to catch, so far as practicable, mud or water thrown up by the rotation of its wheels or tracks"

Link - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/part/II/made

general internet view seems to be that covering the tread is OK, and that protruding sidewalls don't constitute a danger to pedestrians.

Rob Armstrong

also found this in section 27 (h)

"the tyre is not maintained in such condition as to be fit for the use to which the vehicle or trailer is being put or has a defect which might in any way cause damage to the surface of the road or damage to persons on or in the vehicle or to other persons using the road."

That makes me think that copper on the ground makes the call as to whether a tyre would cause damage to a person or not.
Rob Armstrong

what Rob says x2. any deviation from the original design will provide plod (sorry, our tolerant upholders of the law) with a reason to "question" if the setup represents a danger. Whether it gets to court or you just take the fixed penalty is a moot point (or just another tax on driving for pleasure).
I also agree with Alan that this may not the place to ask the question unless we have some qualified legal contributors and even then I would be wary as I've yet to find a lawyer who will commit to a position, let alone find two with the same position. And I make this statement with the authority of one who has worked with lawyers on commercial contracts for about 15 years..LoL
That being said, the legal precedent is, in some way, set by the 1275 GT Mini where the addition of plastic arches were required to cover the tread of the wider wheels. In this case the tread was covered at the edge of the arch but visible just off the vertical point. Hence the common understanding.

Lawyers (and officers of the law, especially traffic) please respond and confirm (we won't use what you say as evidence against you BIG LOL).

MGmike
M McAndrew

Mike

I wasn't aware of the 1275GT having to have plastic arches fitted.

Dave O'Neill2

The tyre has to be covered for half of it's rolling circumferance - so yes not seeing tread when viewed from above is correct. That's why many production cars have little black fences on the wheelarch to meet the legal requirement.
F Pollock

Thanks for all the replies and Yes, I realise that anything legal is open to all sorts of interpretations.
I think I'm going to leave the wheels until I've got the rest of the car finished then maybe try to get hold of a couple of different sizes to see just how they sit within the arches.
meanwhile, after yetserday's delivery from Moss I'm going to start off a whole new thread on steering :-)
graeme jackson

Dave,
Funny how the mind can play tricks and mess up the connections ;0)
I was thinking 1275 but mixed up GT and standard or sprite like this one..
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/rover-mini-1275-classic-mini-sprite-cooper-/300831405296?pt=Automobiles_UK&hash=item460af2f4f0
The point is the same, the precedent is set that the tread needs to covered by the arch (at least part of the way around). How much around the wheel is still up for debate.
Cheers
MGmike
M McAndrew

Found this on the Mini Forum.

Council Directive 78/549/EEC of 12 June 1978 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the wheel guards of motor vehicles

Article 6
This Directive is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Luxembourg, 12 June 1978.
For the Council
The President
K. OLESEN
ANNEX I

1. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 1.1. The motor vehicle must be provided with wheel guards (parts of the bodywork, mudguards, etc.).

1.2. The wheel guards must be so designed as to protect other road users, as far as possible, against thrown-up stones, mud, ice, snow and water and to reduce for those users the dangers due to contact with the moving wheels.

2. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS 2.1. The wheel guards must meet the following requirements when the vehicle is in running order (see section 2.6 of Annex I to Directive 70/156/EEC) and the wheels are in the dead ahead position: 2.1.1. In the part formed by radial planes at an angle of 30º to the front and 50º to the rear of the centre of the wheels (see figure 1), the overall width (q) of the wheel guards must be at least sufficient to cover the total tyre width (b) taking into account the extremes of tyre/wheel combination as specified by the manufacturer and as indicated in section 5.2 of the certificate set out in Annex II. In the case of twin wheels, the total width over the two tyres (t) shall be taken into account. 2.1.1.1. For the purposes of determining the widths referred to in 2.1.1, the labelling (marking) and decorations, protective bands or ribs on tyre walls are not taken into account.

2.1.2. The rear of the wheel guards must not terminate above a horizontal plane 150 mm above the axis of rotation of the wheels (as measured at the wheel centres) and furthermore the intersection of the edge of the wheel guard with this plane (point A, figure 1) must lie outside the median longitudinal plane of the tyre, or in the case of twin wheels the median longitudinal plane of the outermost tyre.

2.1.3. The contour and location of the wheel guards shall be such that they are as close to the tyre as possible ; and in particular within the part formed by the radial planes referred to in 2.1.1, they shall satisfy the following requirements: 2.1.3.1. the projection - situated in the vertical plane of the tyre axis - of the depth (p) of the outer edge of the wheel guards, measured in the vertical longitudinal plane passing through the centre of the tyre, must be at least 30 mm. This depth (p) may be reduced progressively to zero at the radial planes specified in 2.1.1;

2.1.3.2. the distance © between the lower edges of the wheel guards and the axis passing through the centre of the wheels must not exceed 2r, "r" being the static radius of the tyre.

2.1.4. In the case of vehicles having adjustable suspension height, the abovementioned requirements must be met when the vehicle is in the normal running position specified by the vehicle manufacturer.

2.2. The wheel guards may consist of several components, provided no gaps exist between or within the individual parts when assembled.

2.3. The wheel guards must be firmly attached. However, they may be detachable either as a unit or in parts.

Enjoy.:)
Lawrence Slater

Enjoy??? The law is indeed an Ass m'lud.
b higginson

Lawrence

Can you run it past our legal dept.?
Dave O'Neill2

This was my Mini

Geoff Ev

Have to go to europe for that Dave.
Lawrence Slater

This thread was discussed between 12/12/2012 and 13/12/2012

MG Midget and Sprite Technical index

This thread is from the archives. Join the live MG Midget and Sprite Technical BBS now