Failed MOT on front tyres...but what do you think?

[ph001]

Which is exactly why I said it was going over to Track Torque near York to have the alignment adjusted! Or did you not read that bit.

[Jembo]

Tyres are covered in section 5.2.3 of the MOT manual.

The primary grooves of the tread pattern must be at least 1.6mm deep within the central three-quarters of the breadth of tread and around the entire outer circumference of the tyre (see diagram 1).

Either side of the central three-quarters of the tyre can be devoid of tread (‘bald’).

Diagram 1. Primary and secondary grooves in tyre tread pattern

In which case it should have been a pass!

This is why IMO it failed as per the provided link - amongst many others, the tread additionally needs to be visible across the whole surface

The tread pattern must be visible over the whole tread area (see diagram 2), and have a depth of at least 1.0mm throughout a single band of at least three-quarters over any section of the breadth of tread round the entire outer circumference of the tyre

If you consider the main contact point on a turn is on a bald part, that’d be like driving slicks in the wet - better safe than an expensive sorry

[Tyreman]

Two issues here, I do realise that I'm late to the party here though and it's irrelevant but here goes.

Do the tyres need replacing yes 100% without a shadow of doubt, most organisations recommend replacement at 3mm for good reason.

Should they have failed MOT, well based on the photograph no they should not "At least 1.6mm throughout a continuous band in the centre 3/4 of the tread and around the entire circumference" is the wording and the current tyre law in the UK.

There is no requirement for the tread outside of the central 3/4 as outside of the main water evacuation channels some features of the tyre will be designed to wear out quicker than the main tread pattern.

So the OP was correct in my opinion and the tyres aren't technically illegal, he has however done the correct thing by replacing them

[Ewazix]

Two issues here, I do realise that I'm late to the party here though and it's irrelevant but here goes.

Do the tyres need replacing yes 100% without a shadow of doubt, most organisations recommend replacement at 3mm for good reason.

Should they have failed MOT, well based on the photograph no they should not "At least 1.6mm throughout a continuous band in the centre 3/4 of the tread and around the entire circumference" is the wording and the current tyre law in the UK.

There is no requirement for the tread outside of the central 3/4 as outside of the main water evacuation channels some features of the tyre will be designed to wear out quicker than the main tread pattern.

So the OP was correct in my opinion and the tyres aren't technically illegal, he has however done the correct thing by replacing them

As you say the rule is min 1.6mm continuous band in the centre 3/4 of the tread and around the entire circumference, therefore you cannot have more than 1/8 of the width below 1.6mm ether side of the centre 3/4. Looking at the picture the bald band is clearly more that 1/8 (12%) of the tyre width so must be illegal.

Sorry the pedant in me wouldn't let it pass

[Tyreman]

Two issues here, I do realise that I'm late to the party here though and it's irrelevant but here goes.

Do the tyres need replacing yes 100% without a shadow of doubt, most organisations recommend replacement at 3mm for good reason.

Should they have failed MOT, well based on the photograph no they should not "At least 1.6mm throughout a continuous band in the centre 3/4 of the tread and around the entire circumference" is the wording and the current tyre law in the UK.

There is no requirement for the tread outside of the central 3/4 as outside of the main water evacuation channels some features of the tyre will be designed to wear out quicker than the main tread pattern.

So the OP was correct in my opinion and the tyres aren't technically illegal, he has however done the correct thing by replacing them

As you say the rule is min 1.6mm continuous band in the centre 3/4 of the tread and around the entire circumference, therefore you cannot have more than 1/8 of the width below 1.6mm ether side of the centre 3/4. Looking at the picture the bald band is clearly more that 1/8 (12%) of the tyre width so must be illegal.

Sorry the pedant in me wouldn't let it pass

You can be as pedantic as you wish sir but are ultimately wrong, the tread area which you refer to is outside of the water evacuation channels and has features designed to wear out prior to the main tread pattern.

Basically the sipes outside of the main tread pattern don't matter as per the law........the biggest issue is that most people including MOT testers haven't got a clue what they're talking about.

It's purely down to different peoples interpretation of a set of rules in a manual.

[ph001]

[Ewazix]

Two issues here, I do realise that I'm late to the party here though and it's irrelevant but here goes.

Do the tyres need replacing yes 100% without a shadow of doubt, most organisations recommend replacement at 3mm for good reason.

Should they have failed MOT, well based on the photograph no they should not "At least 1.6mm throughout a continuous band in the centre 3/4 of the tread and around the entire circumference" is the wording and the current tyre law in the UK.

There is no requirement for the tread outside of the central 3/4 as outside of the main water evacuation channels some features of the tyre will be designed to wear out quicker than the main tread pattern.

So the OP was correct in my opinion and the tyres aren't technically illegal, he has however done the correct thing by replacing them

As you say the rule is min 1.6mm continuous band in the centre 3/4 of the tread and around the entire circumference, therefore you cannot have more than 1/8 of the width below 1.6mm ether side of the centre 3/4. Looking at the picture the bald band is clearly more that 1/8 (12%) of the tyre width so must be illegal.

Sorry the pedant in me wouldn't let it pass

You can be as pedantic as you wish sir but are ultimately wrong, the tread area which you refer to is outside of the water evacuation channels and has features designed to wear out prior to the main tread pattern.

Basically the sipes outside of the main tread pattern don't matter as per the law........the biggest issue is that most people including MOT testers haven't got a clue what they're talking about.

It's purely down to different peoples interpretation of a set of rules in a manual.

To be fair I was light heartedly following your lead in to this pedantic debate

Besides the 1.6mm 3/4 centre area limit, it's a separate offence to have any groove in the tread area which is no longer visible (s.27 1 f Con & Use Regs 1986) and since approx 20% band of the original visible tread/groove area on one side was bald as a badgers arse, it wasn't legal.

[firebobby]

Is a Badgers arse really bald, the ones I have seen all look pretty hairy to me

[ph001]

Besides the 1.6mm 3/4 centre area limit, it's a separate offence to have any groove in the tread area which is no longer visible (s.27 1 f Con & Use Regs 1986) and since approx 20% band of the original visible tread/groove area on one side was bald as a badgers arse, it wasn't legal.

Trouble is you get road legal track oriented tyres that have quite limited tread patterns anyway, so who's to say? Are these brand new Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2 bald as a badgers arse?...

Michelin PS Cup2.jpg (34.4 KiB) Viewed 787 times

[Ewazix]

Besides the 1.6mm 3/4 centre area limit, it's a separate offence to have any groove in the tread area which is no longer visible (s.27 1 f Con & Use Regs 1986) and since approx 20% band of the original visible tread/groove area on one side was bald as a badgers arse, it wasn't legal.

Trouble is you get road legal track oriented tyres that have quite limited tread patterns anyway, so who's to say? Are these brand new Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2 bald as a badgers arse?...
Michelin PS Cup2.jpg

I'm genuinely not being rude or a know-all, the reason I quoted the act and section is that it's been in force for over 30 years and most of the possible legal interpretation has been exhausted and occasionally amended to clarify, so it's pretty much settled. A lot of people are keen to spout hearsay and opinion on this sort of thing, but if you take the trouble to go to the source legislation you find things may be spelt out for you.

The tyres you highlight clearly have bald bands within the central 75%, this is catered for by said Con & Use s.27 (1)f which states that a tyre is illegal if "the base of any groove which showed in the original tread pattern of the tyre is not clearly visible". So Michelin didn't cock up or risk it, they checked the legislation

[ph001]

I didn't think you were being rude at all. My comment was also supposed to be very light hearted - I'm just playing devil's advocate here! I guess my point was that knowing if there should be tread pattern there or not may not always be clear cut. In practise I guess it is quite obvious.

[Ewazix]

I didn't think you were being rude at all. My comment was also supposed to be very light hearted - I'm just playing devil's advocate here! I guess my point was that knowing if there should be tread pattern there or not may not always be clear cut. In practise I guess it is quite obvious.

For what it's worth I swallowed hard and stuck 4 new tyres on Mrs E's Fiesta today, the tread was cracking up badly despite being only four year old originals, always properly inflated and with decent tread left. They would have raise at least an advisory but I don't skimp on tyres so took the pain