UK road legality of trackday tyres?

[Chris Eyre]

* Not one of those pictured at the top of this thread

...

 

[motorhead]

Even though there must be 75% of the tread not below 1.6mm, it also stipulates that the remaining tread pattern (presumably on the edges of the tyres) must still be visible, but I don’t think these tyres have any pattern on the edges of the tyre, how an MOT tester would interpret this I don’t know

 

[Chris Eyre]

Answered on p1:

The MOT Test (car tyres)

No checks for tread design or e-marks:

• VOSA MOT Inspection manual, tyre section 4.1, page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.

Page 6 extract:

A tread pattern is the combination of plain surfaces and grooves extending across the breadth of the tread and round the entire circumference.

...

The tread pattern excludes any tie-bars, tread wear indicators, or features designed to wear out substantially before the remainder of the pattern, and other minor features. Grooves that had not been cut as deep as those containing the wear indicators when new, are not to be considered as part of the tread pattern.

...

Each side of the central band of the tyre can be devoid of tread (i.e. ‘bald’) and still meet the pass standard.

Therefore this is road legal:

 

[motorhead]

That is correct given the picture, I checked on the computer at the local test station whilst I was there yesterday, but don’t rely on the info you find on the tester’s manual on-line, the test centre terminals are constantly updated, possibly outdating the on-line info depending on when it’s updated.

The only reference to “E marks” is the same as I’m sure you’ve found before….


Quote from tester’s terminal…

“Tyres with NHS, not for highway use or similar markings should only be deemed acceptable if they display an “E” marking and a number contained within a circle. Adjacent to this circle, the sidewall must also be marked 75R followed by a number. Example E11 (in a circle) 75R – 002439”

 

[motorhead]

One other consideration to remember is that any car road tyre must not be re-cut, that renders whatever tyre illegal, road cars are not permitted to be equipped with cut tyres

 

[ibizacupra]

Therefore this is road legal:

thats quite bizarre

 

[Chris Eyre]

All previously included within post 19 (page 1).

don’t rely on the info you find on the tester’s manual on-line, the test centre terminals are constantly updated, possibly outdating the on-line info depending on when it’s updated.

The contents of post 19 were compiled thoroughly, using offical Dft/VOSA/VCA/Type approval sources, and are confirmed as corrrect.

 

[Chris Eyre]

thats quite bizarre

Legal

 

[motorhead]

All previously included within post 19 (page 1).

The contents of post 19 were compiled thoroughly, using offical Dft/VOSA/VCA/Type approval sources, and are confirmed as corrrect.

I didn’t say they were anything other than correct, did I?????? Only that the information changes on the testers terminals before you’ll be able to find out, see resent changes to number plates regulations as a perfect example, even the Police can't keep up, no change then

 

[Chris Eyre]

but don’t rely on the info you find

Since this relates to an event in 2003, I am satisfied that all system updates relating to then are now live

 

[motorhead]

Nothing about 2003 in the title, all the info I’ve commented on is current, I (nor you) have any accurate information that relates specifically to that year, if so then point out when any and all tyre legislation changes.

Any changes in legislation will have superseded any previous regulation from 2003, so how can you say that you know exactly what they were in 2003, you’ve seen the amendments in European law on tyre regs, and they go on for ever. The only thing you can base it on is the current regs, or anyone’s interpretation of them

And cut tyres were also illegal at that point, no mistaking that one, is there?

 

[Chris Eyre]

Daz - stop playing daft for your audience. This thread, from inception, relates to a single event in 2003. We have had several conversations about it. Post 18 made this abundantly clear for those that didn't realise. You already do.

And cut tyres were also illegal at that point, no mistaking that one, is there?

Covered in C&U, as amended.

You’ve seen the amendments in European law on tyre regs, and they go on for ever.

This has nothing to do with European law, it relates to C&U - see DfT email.

Any changes in legislation will have superseded any previous regulation from 2003. The only thing you can base it on is the current regs, or anyone’s interpretation of them

How do I research into the past?

using offical Dft/VOSA/VCA/Type approval sources

You might not be happy about it - that much is clear - but the tyres were roadworthy, as confirmed by the highest authority.

 

[EmDee]

lol tell it to the jury! I'll stick to my Vredesteins thanks, I'd get pulled every 20 minutes with those on.

Not to mention the fact that I'd be in a hedge as soon as it started raining...

I know this discussion is about the minimum allowed tread by law, but I honestly think it would be irresponsible to drive with those on public roads in the UK - what with our lovely weather and all.

At the end of the day you can put whatever tyres you like on your car, odds are nobody will stop you, but if you take it to the track with those on I would wager they're so soft that there won't be any tread pattern at all by the time you were on your way home!

I would recommend a trailer and some slicks...

 

[motorhead]

but the tyres were roadworthy, as confirmed by the highest authority.

who??? you

I’m not playing daft for any audience, I’m purposely trying to stay out of the petty arguments over 2003, just stating what I can see as the facts, to the point of reading through the current regs and no more, your paranoia knows no bounds, again. Have I said they weren’t legal? Have I said they were legal? Answer to both is no.

I’ve asked my local tester the questions raised on here (current criteria anyway) and relayed his answers, and copied what he printed for me.

You can’t, as far as I’m aware, research what was or was not road legal in 03, only speculate, and that once again would have been open for interpretation. Your own take on tyre regs was only to allow E marked tyres on the event in latter years (a good thing I think), now you seem to have done a “U” turn on the necessity of E marking, which could open the flood gates to people trying to use tyres similar to those used in 03, yet I think you’ll still try and implement the E marking regulations which points to double standards. If the tyres noted in this thread are legal, then will you allow them to be used at Curborough? Or just ban those who try and run a similar tyre?

 

[Chris Eyre]

You can’t, as far as I’m aware, research what was or was not road legal in 03, only speculate, and that once again would have been open for interpretation.

Old statute, rules and regulations are not thrown away

Your own take on tyre regs was only to allow E marked tyres on the event in latter years

Incorrect

It was Rob's assertion, over the last 6 years, that no e-marks = non-road legal.

Commentary from Rob can be found in 2004 -see the posts at the start of post 18.

In the period 2004-2006, Rob's ongoing pressure and commentary meant e-marks became accepted as gospel over time: the 'unwritten' participants' rule. Meanwhile, the Events Manager made NO assertions either way, nor did he update the event rules.

All the while, I'd driven on the roads several occasions on Hoosier tyres, unaware of any non e-mark issues. I began to believe it was something I should not have done.

2008 saw the e-mark requirement formalised, prompted by Rob:

Maybe it's worth having a rules refresher

1. Cars to take part in a fully road legal state - MOT\'d and Taxed
2. Tyres - MSA List 1A and 1B allowed and all tyres must be E-marked as road legal in the UK.

Rob's input ^^ was compiled into the Sept 2008 Curborough rules... (the 1A and B MSA tyre references were dropped).

As you can see, it was not my take.

-----


Rob's relentless disputing of the 2003 event results (April-July 2009), and threads such as this, then pushed this e-mark issue to a head. Cue impasse. Following a necessary investigation, the 'e-mark requirement' for roadworthy status is now proven as incorrect.

now you seem to have done a “U” turn on the necessity of E marking, which could open the flood gates to people trying to use tyres similar to those used in 03, yet I think you’ll still try and implement the E marking regulations which points to double standards.

I have not done a U-turn.

The full facts are now above, and we can see that mandating e-marks was not my doing, and had no factual basis.

The question is definitely whether to unpick future event rules to re-permit non e-marked road tyres, or even just name DOT Hoosiers complying with C&U, to avoid opening up to the completely unknown. My personal view is to allow the DOT Hoosiers. For those wishing to try something different to the 888, I say fill the place up with them! The floodgates can be controlled easily, if, as and when the rules are changed, because the present rules mandate an e-mark.

It's too late for the next event - rules need stability, and 10 days to the next event is too short.

So there are no double standards being operated at all

 

[ibizacupra]

As an example of CCRC Racing C'ship: non E marked tyres are not allowed in Combe Saloon, as supplementry to MSA listings, as some people imported, otherwise non-legally available to buy for road use in Britain tyres, which for combe saloons was deemed illegal for their championship. (RE070's in other sizes brought this on)


The crux of this willy waving on unofficial "times" from what was supposed to be a club event, where the machinery and tyres differed so much is laughable (cringefull)

More laughable in that it was not an officially timed event, not that you would notice that from how things degenerated....

Quite sad folks have fallen out in such a big way over such an inconsequential thing..



Want to go racing and get times?? Then go racing.. hill climbing, 1/4 mile.. whatever floats ya boat.


One things remains fact is a Hoosier tyre is not comparible to a regular road tyre like a toyo t1-s, goodyear eagle f1 etc etc, and unsurprisingly, a quick car, well driven with such good tyres set good times.. Wow.. go figure.

and the point is............. pointless arguing imho

its all a bit fruitless.
(guessing the conversation is happening on here as its not going to get all moderated/edited or posted in some sin bin for mods to look at)

Get a grip... please. Its not worth the hassle is it?
Long term friendships have been ruined becasue of the feud.. and as a friend to several of you, as a bystander, its all very sad to have seen happen.

{watches from a distance}

 

[Chris Eyre]

The MSA runs to entirely different rules for different reasons. Our rules had their limitations, but roadworthy was the barometer.

Quite sad folks have fallen out in such a big way over such an inconsequential thing..

I've had to listen to this for over 6 years now, like a broken record. I was being accused of cheating. Forgive me, but it was time to put it to bed, for good.

This is now done.

One things remains fact is a Hoosier tyre is not comparible to a regular road tyre like a toyo t1-s, goodyear eagle f1 etc etc

It's never really been an issue with comparability to 1A (night and day), but there remains a subtext that DOT Hoosiers are more effective than 1Bs / 888s, hence I say use the damn Hoosiers. I don't believe there to be any performance advantage.

Get a grip... please. Its not worth the hassle is it?

Long term friendships have been ruined becasue of the feud.. and as a friend to several of you, as a bystander, its all very sad to have seen happen.

{watches from a distance}

I won't be labelled a cheat, directly or indirectly (post 17). I didn't start it, I've flagged to Rob that sheer competitiveness should not override friendships, but this appears to have fallen on deaf ears.

I do agree with your above sentiments entirely. We all now need to move on.

 

[Fl@pper]

as this obviously goes deeper than wether a 'tyre' is road legal and seems to be about some 'rules' somewhere then all i can suggest is to learn from the experience in street eliminator when drag radials were being utilised again.

after several meetings/altercations and the loss of several main compeitors the class rules were altered

firstly defining what tyre style/tread and markings had to be present in standard form

a list (accessed every official meeting (2 a year) of any additional excluded tyres that wether marked correctly or not were excluded by the majority ruling as voted by the drivers themselves

end of the day using the 'road legal' aspect of any tyre limitations/rules is open to many interpretations especially when you add another country supplied option etc and will only cause (and does) many arguments over advantages/styles etc especially from those that can't use it to their own advantage

if it's for any form of class/rules then it needs to be defined it in black and white what IS and what ISN'T allowed or it's asking for trouble

 

[motorhead]

Old statute, rules and regulations are not thrown away


Incorrect

It was Rob's assertion, over the last 6 years, that no e-marks = non-road legal.

Commentary from Rob can be found in 2004 -see the posts at the start of post 18.

In the period 2004-2006, Rob's ongoing pressure and commentary meant e-marks became accepted as gospel over time: the 'unwritten' participants' rule. Meanwhile, the Events Manager made NO assertions either way, nor did he update the event rules.

All the while, I'd driven on the roads several occasions on Hoosier tyres, unaware of any non e-mark issues. I began to believe it was something I should not have done.

2008 saw the e-mark requirement formalised, prompted by Rob:



Rob's input ^^ was compiled into the Sept 2008 Curborough rules... (the 1A and B MSA tyre references were dropped).

As you can see, it was not my take.

-----


Rob's relentless disputing of the 2003 event results (April-July 2009), and threads such as this, then pushed this e-mark issue to a head. Cue impasse. Following a necessary investigation, the 'e-mark requirement' for roadworthy status is now proven as incorrect.


I have not done a U-turn.

The full facts are now above, and we can see that mandating e-marks was not my doing, and had no factual basis.

The question is definitely whether to unpick future event rules to re-permit non e-marked road tyres, or even just name DOT Hoosiers complying with C&U, to avoid opening up to the completely unknown. My personal view is to allow the DOT Hoosiers. For those wishing to try something different to the 888, I say fill the place up with them! The floodgates can be controlled easily, if, as and when the rules are changed, because the present rules mandate an e-mark.

It's too late for the next event - rules need stability, and 10 days to the next event is too short.

So there are no double standards being operated at all

You can’t pass the buck entirely onto Rob ref E marks, you know your own mind more than most I know, you’ll only have agreed if you were happy that E marks were a true requirement, I think it’s a good idea to keep that stipulation but the current argument does open up discussion on what people could (possibly) legitimately run in the future.

Like I said, I’m not going to jump into the argument over the legality of said tyres in 2003, mainly because I can’t find a definitive answer that I’d be 100% happy to accept, and I find it hard for anyone else to come to any other decision, the question of the tyres being in the sprit of the event may be an easier question to answer for some, but as it didn’t bother me at the time I can’t see why it should bother me now, all just detracts from future events and puts a sour taint on past events.

 

[ibizacupra]

as this obviously goes deeper than wether a 'tyre' is road legal and seems to be about some 'rules' somewhere then all i can suggest is to learn from the experience in street eliminator when drag radials were being utilised again.

after several meetings/altercations and the loss of several main compeitors the class rules were altered

firstly defining what tyre style/tread and markings had to be present in standard form

a list (accessed every official meeting (2 a year) of any additional excluded tyres that wether marked correctly or not were excluded by the majority ruling as voted by the drivers themselves

end of the day using the 'road legal' aspect of any tyre limitations/rules is open to many interpretations especially when you add another country supplied option etc and will only cause (and does) many arguments over advantages/styles etc especially from those that can't use it to their own advantage

if it's for any form of class/rules then it needs to be defined it in black and white what IS and what ISN'T allowed or it's asking for trouble

this is what happens when it crosses the line of fun competition into something else..

as much as there are some who can afford to use better machinery than others, but that does'nt always correlate into faster because of more expensive.. it can add to the "mix" tho and spur you on to beat the rich guy with lesser kit, or moan about how unfair it is..

cgti's sprints are not offocially timed of course as that would fringe msa affiliated clubs of course

just for fun folks..

go proper racing if times is what matters. we do it and win and loose... and try harder to go faster and faster.. or give up trying.



keep the faith