Why do people say this, it means lick unless the insurance company can deem the wrong tyres at fault.Quote:
Originally Posted by LoveMyV8County
Printable View
Why do people say this, it means lick unless the insurance company can deem the wrong tyres at fault.Quote:
Originally Posted by LoveMyV8County
OK, this makes sense to a point, BUTQuote:
Originally Posted by Blknight.aus
Lets assume there's a tube fitted to a rim without a safety bead and a rapid deflation occurs due to a tube failure etc - not unheard of. Whats to stop the exact same thing happening anyway? The tube isnt going to stop the tyre pulling in the same way you describe if there was no tube fitted.
So why is it safer to run a tube if the rim doesnt have a safety bead?
Good answer that. Pat
good question, Ive asked the same thing and never been given a satisfactory answer....
heres my best guess.
the tubed tyres are generally rated slower and generally used in slower speed applications. In theory you shouldnt be going fast enough on a tubed tyre to wind up in the same level of trouble as you could on a tubeless tyre.
the other part that comes into the equation is that the construction of most rims that dont have the safety bead is a lot heavier than that of its safety rimmed tubeless bretheren. if /when you drop onto it it shouldnt deform and keep the rubber in check.
in the event of a gradual loss of pressure the tube will keep the tyre seated and push it back if it pushes out a little bit whereas the tubeless will deflate almost as soon as the bead moves away from the edge.
These sorts of things are in ADRs.Quote:
The only info I could find quickly was that in the US, a tubeless tyre must be fitted to a safety beaded rim for DOT approval but in the Vicroads rwc requirements I cant find any reference to it.
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrument1.nsf/0/E1EC15854C29D07CCA257187000AAD66/$file/ADR+23-01+%5BFINAL+FRLI%5D.pdf
And others. it describes the latest test standards and procedures.
Regards Philip A
No, it is relevant. It's based on the requirement by insurance companies that vehicles are roadworthy, meet all relevant ADRs etc. If you have a crash in a vehicle that has tubeless tyres fitted to tube type rims, there is every possibility that they won't cover you even if the cause of the accident was due to, say, the driver watching porn at the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by rovercare
One point of course is that by and large, ADRs only apply to vehicles built after the date of the particular ADR - and a substantial majority of Landrover's sixty years of production predates ADRs, let alone those regarding tyres.
It is worth noting that tubless tyres were used on rims without the safety bead (not been thought of) for perhaps twenty years at least, without the questions currently being raised. I'm not sure when they became standard practice, but I suspect only about twenty years ago.
John
No, as their is overriding criteria, stipulating that its not the case, otherwise every claim would simply end up with, the vehicle being proved unroadworthy and deemed null and void for a claim.............Quote:
Originally Posted by B92 8NW
Wait till you or someone close to you has been through a few, road death invetigations and/or claims in modified vehicles
No need to wait, family legal business has been involved in motor vehicle insurance since 1976 and has presided over 7,500 claims involving modified vehicles. Apologies to anyone if I sounded like a smartarse *****, but I'll admit, that comment did strike me as a bit condescending.Quote:
Originally Posted by rovercare
Agreed that there are other criteria and its not two dimensional, but I'd struggle to find a policy that'd cover a vehicle that an owner has modified which leads to the vehicle being unroadworthy, especially if they knew or a reasonable person would have known that the modifications were unsafe or unroadworthy. This is why I get rattled by people doing HID modifications to their dipped beams, because they know perfectly well it isn't lawful yet pass it off by saying "all poorly adjusted headlights dazzle" or something to that effect. What is unlawful is unlawful and nothing makes it otherwise!
I agree with what you're saying because very few cars - even newer cars - would be perfectly roadworthy to the book, and I too doubt an insurance company wouldn't pay out because, for example, a new 2008MY vehicle had a blown stoplight, whether it caused an accident or not.
But I'd argue that in the instance of tyres, most insurance examiners are going to be interested in checking the state and appropriateness of tyres fitted to a vehicle.
Out of interest, of 7500 modified vehicle claims how many were refused because of tyres being >15mm in diamter or whatever the rule is. Without being crazy like non engineered 37s.
For example 33s on a cruiser/playdo/patrol/fender are not ADR but how many policies are null and voided because of that?
S