Language:
switch to room list switch to menu My folders
Go to page: First ... 61 62 63 64 [65] 66 67 68 69 ... Last
[#] Thu Nov 26 2009 00:59:17 EST from the8088er @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

(Cars in a literal sense there, not the broad all encompassing term)

[#] Wed Dec 02 2009 11:32:46 EST from rudolf @ Uncensored

Subject: tires

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Has anyone had a wear problem with Wrangler MT/R's? Local tire store likes BF Goodrich, Pro Comp, Michelin, Cooper/Mastercraft. Neil said the Goodyear tires wear out quicker.



[#] Wed Dec 02 2009 13:20:42 EST from skpacman @ Uncensored

Subject: tires

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I've always been a michelin fan, though they're more expensive, i havent had many wear issues with them. Goodyear does better for sport cars and light-weight trucks. a heavier truck or medium-to-heavy duty truck should consider sturdier tires... not sure which though.



[#] Wed Dec 02 2009 14:32:27 EST from davew @ Uncensored

Subject: tires

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

My company owns two Citroen Berlingo vans, heavy model, think its 800 Kg, not sure.

Those vans are required to be fitted with Mitchelin tyres.

Not my choice, its a bad case of Citroen, insurance company, UK law, all bets are off, go direct to jail, get van squashed if its not fitted with Mitchelin tyres.

What worries me is if Mitchelin go bust, then what, scrap the vans I guess.

 



[#] Fri Dec 04 2009 01:01:29 EST from the8088er @ Uncensored

Subject: Re: tires

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

UK will crush your van if it's not fitted with Michelin tires? That's absurd.

Load rating should matter much more than tire brand. Are you sure about that?

[#] Fri Dec 04 2009 12:34:52 EST from davew @ Uncensored

Subject: Re: tires

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

 

Fri Dec 04 2009 01:01:29 EST from the8088er @ Uncensored Subject: Re: tires
UK will crush your van if it's not fitted with Michelin tires? That's absurd.
Load rating should matter much more than tire brand. Are you sure about that?

Absolutely. No other manufacturer makes a tyre with a load rating as high as the mitchelin tyre.

They don't crush it because it has the wrong tyres. They crush it because with the wrong tyres it has no insurance and no MOT.



[#] Fri Dec 04 2009 13:49:40 EST from the8088er @ Uncensored

Subject: Re: tires

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

What is the tire size and load rating requirements for this van? I can't imagine that Michelin would be the only brand to suffice that rating. How big is this van anyway? I can't imagine Citroen making anything bigger than, say, my friend's Econoline, for which several well rated aftermarket tires are available.

FWIW, you could probably change the wheels to a different size for which more tires in the appropriate load range are available. I bet you have a size that few trucks use, such as 16", in which case going to a 15" wheel would open many more tires with an appropriate load range.

I'm only going on about this because while I agree that the Michelin LTX M/S and M/S^2 tires are the best damn truck/van/SUV tires in the world, they're really expensive, which is why I don't have them on my car :-P

Additionally crushing a car for lack of insurance seems ridiculous. Here we fine drivers and probably impound them and auction them in certain circumstances. They do like to crush cars with stolen parts, which again, doesn't make any sense to me, because it doesn't help the situation at all.

[#] Sat Dec 05 2009 07:20:26 EST from davew @ Uncensored

Subject: Re: tires

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

 

Fri Dec 04 2009 13:49:40 EST from the8088er @ Uncensored Subject: Re: tires
What is the tire size and load rating requirements for this van? I can't imagine that Michelin would be the only brand to suffice that rating. How big is this van anyway? I can't imagine Citroen making anything bigger than, say, my friend's Econoline, for which several well rated aftermarket tires are available.

FWIW, you could probably change the wheels to a different size for which more tires in the appropriate load range are available. I bet you have a size that few trucks use, such as 16", in which case going to a 15" wheel would open many more tires with an appropriate load range.

I'm only going on about this because while I agree that the Michelin LTX M/S and M/S^2 tires are the best damn truck/van/SUV tires in the world, they're really expensive, which is why I don't have them on my car :-P

Additionally crushing a car for lack of insurance seems ridiculous. Here we fine drivers and probably impound them and auction them in certain circumstances. They do like to crush cars with stolen parts, which again, doesn't make any sense to me, because it doesn't help the situation at all.

Its a small van, gross weight 2000Kg

Wheels are 13" can't go bigger because no room. Can't go smaller because won't clear disks / drumks etc and nobody make tyres for smaller wheels.

Its all about whats available in the UK.

There probably are other manufacturers of tyre that will do but they have no outlets in the UK.

UK law says if its on the road but not road legal it gets crushed and you get a fine and maybe even a custodial sentence depending on any consequential losses to others b ut no matter what the vehicle is to be crushed.

Oh yeh, and you have to walk home too.

 



[#] Sat Dec 05 2009 14:05:21 EST from the8088er @ Uncensored

Subject: Re: tires

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

What if your tail light's out. It's not road legal. There has to be a line somewhere.

13" wheels should have many truck tires available though.

[#] Sat Dec 05 2009 15:07:53 EST from davew @ Uncensored

Subject: Re: tires

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

 

Sat Dec 05 2009 14:05:21 EST from the8088er @ Uncensored Subject: Re: tires
What if your tail light's out. It's not road legal. There has to be a line somewhere.

13" wheels should have many truck tires available though.

Actually a tail light out or similar defect is "road legal" in UK law.

To be "road legal" the vehicle must have a valid MOT, insurance for the third party (minimum) and road fund licence (TAX).

To get TAX you must have MOT and insurance.

To get insurance you must have MOT.

To get MOT the vehicle must meet the construction and use regulations for that type of vehicle on the day it was tested, valid for one year.

construction and use regulations define lights, weight, mirrors, seat belts etc etc. But a breach of the construction and use regulations due to damage or breakdown does not negate the MOT so the vehicle remains "road legal" until the current MOT expires or is revoked. A current MOT can be revoked if a defect noted by the police is not repaired and confirmed so by a test station within 7 days of the defect being noted. There is no fine or charge for the examination of the repair for such defects.

A Ministry of Transport vehicle inspector (now called VOSA) can revoke an MOT at anytime but is more likely to issue a prohibition notice for the vehicle (used to be called GV9, now something else) if your vehicle has a prohibition notice it is NOT road legal, even if it has valid MOT, and if caught on the road it will be crushed.

Police use a number plate recognition system (ANPR) linked to a data base of all this information and they will stop, sieze and crush any vehicle that does not fit the "road legal" defenition.

There is a delay between seizure and crushing to confirm the identity of the vehicle and integrity of the data base but there is no excuse, you can not plead "I didn't know", nothing will get you off once its in the system there isn't even anyone to bribe.

 



[#] Sat Dec 05 2009 16:39:39 EST from the8088er @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

That's still fairly ridiculous. It's almost akin to tearing down houses that are being knowingly lived which don't conform to current building codes. It would seem much more effective to fix the problem than destroy the cause.


[#] Sun Dec 06 2009 07:24:52 EST from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

UK not so smart. Here in greedy US they're more than happy to let you have an unroadworthy car. This way they can keep ticketing you for it.

[#] Mon Dec 07 2009 06:19:50 EST from davew @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

 

Sat Dec 05 2009 16:39:39 EST from the8088er @ Uncensored
That's still fairly ridiculous. It's almost akin to tearing down houses that are being knowingly lived which don't conform to current building codes. It would seem much more effective to fix the problem than destroy the cause.

You'd be surprised just how close we are to that too.

In the UK you need planning permission from the local authority to build a house or to alter it. In some areas you even need planning permission to put up a satelite dish.

Some people have built houses without planning permission, been libving in them for a few months when the authorities found out and then they are slapped with an instruction to remove the house. If the owner doesn't remove it the local authority will do so and charge them for it. They don't necesarilly empty the house first either but they will make sure nobody is in there.

Not quite as bad as requiring it to conform to current codes but almost because if you have planning permission and do a build it must conform to current codes and failure to conform will negate the permission and could result in the property being demolished. That has been the case since.... ooh... a lot longer than car crushing.

Major difference between buildings and cars is they give you the oportunity to make the house legal before they tear it down (though they may never grant planing in which case it comes down anyway).

Oh and one other thing. If you can show that the property meets residential codes and has been lived in for at least one year (and one day I think) then you get automatic planning permission and the house can stay.

 



[#] Mon Dec 07 2009 06:23:04 EST from davew @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

 

Sun Dec 06 2009 07:24:52 EST from Ford II @ Uncensored
UK not so smart. Here in greedy US they're more than happy to let you have an unroadworthy car. This way they can keep ticketing you for it.

One way of looking at it but then you have that vehicular man slaughter thing which we don't have. So we get them for defective vehicle if we can't get them for intentionaly running you down.



[#] Mon Dec 07 2009 09:35:09 EST from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Oh and one other thing. If you can show that the property meets
residential codes and has been lived in for at least one year (and
one day I think) then you get automatic planning permission and the
house can stay.

So what does it cost to keep the officials at bay for a year.

[#] Mon Dec 07 2009 09:44:28 EST from dothebart @ Uncensored

Subject: tires

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

 

Mi Dez 02 2009 14:32:27 EST von davew @ Uncensored Betreff: tires

My company owns two Citroen Berlingo vans, heavy model, think its 800 Kg, not sure.

Those vans are required to be fitted with Mitchelin tyres.

Not my choice, its a bad case of Citroen, insurance company, UK law, all bets are off, go direct to jail, get van squashed if its not fitted with Mitchelin tyres.

What worries me is if Mitchelin go bust, then what, scrap the vans I guess.

It seems to be common practice at Citroen; A friend of mine owned a ds-GTI (manufactured the first half of the 80'ies) which was only allowed to ride _one_ specific Michelin Tire with 205 width (so a set of tires was allmost as expensive as buying another d-s with not yet worn off ones)



[#] Mon Dec 07 2009 23:56:05 EST from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

Subject: Re: tires

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

So, hey don't have any concept of supplier diversity?

[#] Tue Dec 08 2009 13:37:19 EST from davew @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

 

Mon Dec 07 2009 09:35:09 EST from Ford II @ Uncensored
Oh and one other thing. If you can show that the property meets
residential codes and has been lived in for at least one year (and
one day I think) then you get automatic planning permission and the
house can stay.

So what does it cost to keep the officials at bay for a year.

Good question.

Bribery could be expensive though since its most likely your neighbours that will "drop a dime" (do I get extra points for using an American term?) on you and they'll probably keep going until they reach the top or the press.



[#] Sat Dec 12 2009 01:15:09 EST from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

So the bribery needs to be combined with intimidation, blackmail, etc...

[#] Sat Jan 09 2010 14:11:51 EST from rudolf @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Here we go, the rest of the country gets to find out about pollution. I'll go soot somebody while I still can.



Go to page: First ... 61 62 63 64 [65] 66 67 68 69 ... Last