Pete Smith's tyre issue - LL #154

[mickmetcalfe]

In the latest LL, Pete Smith expresses concern that his tyres did not have a MST marking on them.

If you follow the link to the official testers manual, http://www.motuk.co.uk/mcmanual_410.htm, it may help us decide! This is a fantastic document and should help ease everyone through that truamatic time even if is doesnt quite sort out the tyre situation...

The paragraph 'b. Motocross or similar tyres, i.e. tyres where the space between tread blocks is substantially greater than the size of the blocks themselves; which do not have MST (multi service tyre) with an 'E' in a circle or an e in a rectangle moulded into or on to the tyre wall' is the one in question

Trials tyres have always been deemed to be road legal and never questioned because the gap between the blocks is by the sporting regulation less than the block width but I believe that the MST and E marking is a comparatively new thing, presumably generated by EU requirements.

I would doubt that older tyres like Pirelli MT13 and Dunlop Trials Champion (remember them?) have such markings and I need to go into the garage to check what is on my 'fleet' of IRC's. I'm sure Ive seen 'not for highway use' on them as mentioned in the next paragraph.

Hopefully, common sense will prevail and the experienced testers will know the reality of the situation as long as we dont provoke thing by presenting the machine with 4 psi in the back tyre.

[John Wakefield]

Tyre issues

This problem was also experianced with another GRA member Dick Dunkley who had the same problem when he took his Scottish to Wheel Fit in Cambridge. Stupid thing about them is they fitted the tyres for him a year or so previous, knowing full well the bike was road legal. they passed it after checking the tyre spec, but needless to say Dick will not be using them again. Its a case of the MoT being all 'black & white' computor based. "The tyres dont have the right marks so its a failure mate"
VOSA are out of touch with the older bikes & are baseing the test requirements on modern day machines, & are taking away the decisions from the testers. For the above reasons I take my bikes to a small village garage set up where the tester/owner is a classic & vintage bike owner himself. & uses his discretion, I keep well away from the modern bike dealer testing stations.

[mickmetcalfe]

Sorry, I couldnt find any other posts on the subject at the time! My apologies.

It is a sad fact in this modern age that this sort of thing happens with increasing regularity.

I too have severe doubts about the abilities of most 'high street' service stations and can only endorse your comments about smaller establishments. How can a company be called 'Kwik Fit' if it takes 3 further visits to rectify a badly fitted exhaust system?

It does however, throw up the other issue that the small garages are getting squeezed out by the larger ones. The only way we can help is to ensure we point as many people as possible in the direction of those who continue to help us.

[Peter Rotherham]

Tyres - Road Legal?

I can only agree with previous coments. However, on a parallel note.....the local 'Bike Night' up here sees machines of all types, ages, shapes & sizes. A recent, (and it must be said unwelcome because of their behaviour) addition is the presence of a small number of road going Quad bikes. These machines, whilst 'road legal' have tyres and exhausts on them clearly marked 'not for road use'. Now, they are being openly sold and serviced by these same garages that adhere slavishly to the EU imposed VOSA stupidity that says if you can't tick the box on the computer screen, then it's a fail.
As with all EU edicts, there is a double standard operating. As a former MOT Tester of 'bikes back in prehistoric times, I used common sense, often correcting minor faults like failed bulbs, without charge, in order to pass a machine. I think that FHVBC needs to address the matter urgently. The GRA is affiliated.........

[Brian Thompson]

The importance of keeping threads specific and on topic.

Sorry, I couldnt find any other posts on the subject at the time! My apologies.

OK chaps, I'm putting my 'moderators' cap on now! I'm going to have to go 'off topic' for a moment, but this needs to be flagged up as it's happened several times recently and this is an ideal opportunity to mention it. In doing so, I make no apologies-it needs to be done.

Mick; I think the reason you couldn't find any other posts on this topic was because JW had included it in a thread entitled 'LL August'. John's thread begins with about a line and a half about general 'LL' content, specifically the (excellent) article by Mike Tizard re his experinces on the ex Phil Hyde Tri-Greeves Challenger. The remainder (and bulk) of the post then turns to this topic, re Peter Smiths article on MOT and Tire issues in the same issue of 'LL'.

Really, it would have been much better for JW to have split that post up into two seperate ones, specific to each topic. As a moderator I am now faced with the possiblity of any reponses to the 'MOT/Tires' topic appearing in two different places on the forum (on that thread and this), and as Mike has demonstrated, this makes them hard to find and access. It also leads to the posibility of duplication of information, people replying to two (or more, or even mulitple) different topics within the same thread, and ultimately more admin for the moderators keeping threads tidy, organised and 'on topic' for everyone's ease of use.

Fair enough, we're all learning as we go along on here, but as this has been happening quite a bit recently I thought I'd mention it here once again. One topic, one thread, and try to keep that topic on thread! As JW has copied his previous post over onto this thread, I will edit the relevant posts (there and here) accordingly to keep this thread (and the 'LL August' thread) specific and relevant to the topics being discussed.

It's the 'off-shoot'/'going off on a tangent' comments that cause the problem, and takes things off topic. Much better to start a new thread if it's changing the subject away from the original title of the post/thread. I appreciate that 'LL August' was a very 'general' title, but the posibilities for that thread to then develop into a whole range of topics (i.e. about anything at all published in that issue!) are surely obvious to see.

For this reason it is very important to ensure that thread titles are specific to the topic being discussed, and all subsequent posts are in relation to that topic. Sure, sometimes we need to meander around a bit in a post to bring in wider issues/further info, etc, but as long as it starts and ends on topic it's usually works out ok. Also, before submitting a post, I always ask myself if any potential responses that may be subsequently posted as a result could end up taking the thread off topic due to what I myself have posted.

Part of the moderator teams role is to sort out these little niggles, and keep the forum organised and tidy to ensure that topics and relevant/related info are as easy to find and access as possible. Sometimes it's a simple case of moving a post or thread to a more relevant area, as I have done several times recently. It's not a problem chaps, but it does add to the admin workload as I've mentioned before (think spammers!) Otherwise things can start to get messy....

Your cooperation and support with this is, as always, greatly appreciated. Thanks to all.

Brian.

Now.....getting back on-topic, what we're we saying about MOTs and tyres which is the topic of this thread....?!