[henwoodl]

Originally Posted by Cafe.Racer

Are you having a laugh?



Never, ever trust a dealer with something like this. Why pay dealer prices anyway?

Every time mine's been in, they've told me that my tyres needed replacing - which is absolute rubbish. This last time, they're told me they're on the legal limit (showed me the "measurements"), which they are definitely not - I haven't measured, but there must be 3-4mm left on.

It's frustrating that they are being dishonest, but it seems to be accepted practice.

I think SoCalTech has made a fair comment, they really do need replacing, and he's only looking out for ed335d's safety.

Secondly, dealers are in the business of selling tyres, so they will naturally give you the sales schpiel everytime. Its easy enough to politely refuse and then do some research yourself on tread and alternative prices. It takes about 2 minutes to check your tyre tread depths, so no need to rely on the BMW print out.

I understand that you can make big savings by extending their use, but personally I just don't think its worth gambling on this particular component.

Just for the record, legal minimum is 1.6mm accross the central 75% of the tyre, throughout the whole circumference of the tyre.

Apparently, at 1.6mm in wet weather it takes more than an extra car length (8 metres) to stop from 50 mph, than if your tread was 3mm.

[PhilR]

Tyre is legal although the outer edge is wearing.

I would avise you do not get the tyres fitted by BMW at extortinate rates. They generally outsource to a tyre company anyway (my local dealer does), you may as well go direct to them and save a few quid in the process.

I seem to recall from memory 1/3 of the tyre surface has to be below the minimum tread depth to be illegal. Could have been misinformed though!

[Carrera RSR]

Originally Posted by CraigUK

I've got exactly the same type of wear but it's on the front as opposed to the rear; also it is the outside of the tyre rather than the inner edge. I've noticed that you are on Bridgestones, is this a trait of Bridgestone RFTs, or does this also happen to Michelin PS2 RFTs? On first inspection it suggests camber issues, too low a tyre pressure would cause wear on both sides IMO.

Its a trait of the 3 series. Outer edges on the front, inner edges on the rear. Due the the camber difference front and rear. Also the stiff sidewalls of the RFT's exaggerate this wear as if the tyres were under inflated. Often there is still adequate tread left in the centre of the tyre, 3mm+, but the edges are down to the core.

[dxb335d]

My dealer told me my discs and pads were facked,

I took the discs home and there back on the car after i wore the new ones out at a track day.


So the very original discs are back on my car and even did a ring trip on em.

BMW dealerships really are stealerships.

[JamboChris]

Originally Posted by dxb335d

BMW dealerships really are stealerships.

When I had my M3, the local dealer said I needed a new clutch. I had no problems with it and it was still ok when I sold the car 2 years later....

Makes you wonder how many folk just take their word for it and get the things changed.

Chris

[dxb335d]

Originally Posted by JamboChris

When I had my M3, the local dealer said I needed a new clutch. I had no problems with it and it was still ok when I sold the car 2 years later....

Makes you wonder how many folk just take their word for it and get the things changed.

Chris

I think alot of Joe average do just go along with it, disgusting really.

[encee]

That tyre is illegal.

The base of the of the grooves of the original tread pattern are no longer visible along the edge that`s worn, and it should be.

Yes, the central 3/4 of the tread must be above 1.6mm, which it probably is, and thus the outer 1/8 on each side can be below 1.6mm, and still remain legal, but ONLY if the base of the grooves is still visible, which in this case it isn`t.

As SoCal said mate, you should change it, as the cord will soon be through anyway, which is then something which will make them additionally illegal.

Hope this helps.

[dxb335d]

its the central 3/4 that have to be below 1.6 to be illegal.

[encee]

Originally Posted by dxb335d

its the central 3/4 that have to be below 1.6 to be illegal.

Yes Carl, and that would also make it illegal if the central portion was below 1.6mm, but in this case it`s above 1.6mm.

What does make it illegal is the fact that the base of the original grooves is not visible all the way across, which it should be.

[dxb335d]

confused mate.

[SoCalTech]

Originally Posted by Cafe.Racer

Are you having a laugh?

No, why do you ask? That tire is worn out. Just because the center tread is fine, doesn't mean that the tire is fine. I see this wear pattern all the time on these cars. I also see people ignore it, then have a blow out.
People call us crooks, and whatnot, but there are certain things that we have to do legally. That tire is unsafe. If it came in like that, then left and had a blowout, I could be sued for not tell int the customer of the unsafe tire. The rotors mentioned earlier, they have a spec stamped on them. They might be fine running below that spec, but I have to recommend replacement if it is below that spec. Again, if you get in an accident, and I didn't recommend it, then we would be sued. I'm damned if I do, and damned if I don't. You think I try to rip off customers, but I have to cover my ass legally.

[NFS]

Originally Posted by encee

Yes Carl, and that would also make it illegal if the central portion was below 1.6mm, but in this case it`s above 1.6mm.

What does make it illegal is the fact that the base of the original grooves is not visible all the way across, which it should be.

With motorbikes it's 1.6mm on the central 75% of the tyre and visible tread on the outer 25%.

I don't think the visible tread bit applies to cars.

[F31-340i]

^^ correct....

nicely explained here -

http://www.etyres.co.uk/uk-tyre-law

so the tyre is legal, but note any cord exposure will make it illegal - the way it is wearing this may well happen before you get down to 1.6mm across the central 75% (unless you find that increasing its inflation cures the uneven wear). As you've easily got >3mm in the centre of the tread the actual performance of the tyre, even in the wet, should be OK for sometime.

[encee]

Sorry gents, the OP`s tyre is NOT legal. Have a look on the link here:

http://www.5ive-o.org/forum/showthre...re+tread+depth


Have a look nearly all the way down the page, where the Police Officer, ie "Resident Fed" says this:

"just flicking through my Traffic Officers Companion for something else when I also noticed this: "Tyres Must have the base of any groove which showed in the original tread pattern clearly visible" so if the groves extended to the worn area of the tyre originally then its illegal."

The "Traffic Officers Companion" that he refers to is an official booklet with all the traffic law in it, which quotes excerpts from the "Road vehicles construction and use regs 1986", which governs tyre law in this country (amongst other traffic laws)

As can be seen by the OP`s tyre, the grooves in the original tread pattern along the outer edge, are no longer clearly visible.

[NFS]

Originally Posted by encee

Sorry gents, the OP`s tyre is NOT legal. Have a look on the link here:

http://www.5ive-o.org/forum/showthre...re+tread+depth


Have a look nearly all the way down the page, where the Police Officer, ie "Resident Fed" says this:

"just flicking through my Traffic Officers Companion for something else when I also noticed this: "Tyres Must have the base of any groove which showed in the original tread pattern clearly visible" so if the groves extended to the worn area of the tyre originally then its illegal."

The "Traffic Officers Companion" that he refers to is an official booklet with all the traffic law in it, which quotes excerpts from the "Road vehicles construction and use regs 1986", which governs tyre law in this country (amongst other traffic laws)

As can be seen by the OP`s tyre, the grooves in the original tread pattern along the outer edge, are no longer clearly visible.

The e-tyres link above says the exact opposite (look at the picture on the link).

Nothing I can find in terms of public information refers to 'visible tread pattern' it's all about the depth of the grooves.

The Bridgestones on my car have a shallow diagonal tread pattern in some areas, which has worn through completely on my front tyres, but the wear blocks in the central grooves are not showing. If the law required ALL of the original tread pattern to be visible, then what would be the point of the wear blocks?

I've found something that says tyres can't be sold if all the original tread is not visible:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1994/Uksi_19943117_en_2.htm

I've also found the 1990 amendment to the original 1986 'construction and use' act, which introduces the current 1.6mm limit:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1990/Uksi_19901981_en_1.htm

Originally Posted by Regulation 27

(f) The requirements referred to in sub-paragraph (d) are that the grooves of the tread pattern of every tyre fitted to the wheels of a vehicle mentioned in sub-paragraph (e) shall be of a depth of at least 1.6 mm throughout a continuous band situated in the central three-quarters of the breadth of tread and round the entire outer circumference of the tyre." .

So no specific mention of 'visible tread'. If what you say is correct, then any tyre is illegal as soon as any of the original tread is scuffed off.

If you look at the attached photo of the Bridgestones I have, you can see this will be very early in the tyres life, as some of the diagonal nicks are much more shallow than the central grooves.

The 'traffic officers companion' is £20 and I think it would be odd if I had to buy that to try to understand a basic law that we are all supposed to comply with.

[NFS]

This is the picture in the link encee posted:



I have to say that this does look legal to me.

The very outer tread on my tyres when they are brand new tapers down to zero mm

So if this is correct, then ANY wear of those tyres at all would reduce the amount of visible thread and make them illegal.

[ed335d]

If regulation 27 is current, then on a 255 tyre, you would be permitted to have up to approx 32mm on either edge that has no tread at all, as the 75% limit across the central section is pretty clear?

[doughboy]

Originally Posted by encee

Sorry gents, the OP`s tyre is NOT legal. Have a look on the link here:

http://www.5ive-o.org/forum/showthre...re+tread+depth
.

No one on that thread seems to understand the words 'outer circumference'

God help you if that copper stops you!

IMO that tyre is legal - I've just had mine MOT'd with both the rears down to zero at the inner edge and the fronts down to zero at the outer edge.

It passed, but with an advisory note.

[encee]

The 'traffic officers companion' is £20 and I think it would be odd if I had to buy that to try to understand a basic law that we are all supposed to comply with.

NFS: I agree with what you say here, but like a vast amount of the laws in this country, it`s the ones that aren`t always made public that can catch you out. This is the reason why the solicitors and lawyers exist, because it`s their job to know the ins and outs of a cats backside !!

The "Traffic Officers Companion" that I mentioned isn`t just an aide-memoire, it actually lists the points to prove governing tyre law, which is covered under Sec 27 of the Road Vehicles Construction and Use Regs 1986.

I agree that some of the stuff listed on sites like e-tyres is also lifted from this section of the Road Traffic Act, but they obviously don`t list all of it !!

If you need further proof, here is a link to the Police National Legal Database:

https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q405.htm


Have a look at bullet point 5, which again points out the requirement to " Have the base of any groove, which showed the original tread pattern clearly visible ".

So in effect, the central 3/4 of your tread pattern MUST be over 1.6mm in depth, and the outer eighths (if you like), can be under 1.6mm, to account for normal wear, AS LONG AS the base of the original groove can still be seen, ie, it can be say, 0.5mm, as long as the base of the original groove is still visible ?

I`m not on a mission here gents, I`m just trying to assist the OP, who may find himself with a £60 fine, and three points on his licence should he be stopped whilst using that tyre.

[ed335d]

Originally Posted by encee

NFS: I agree with what you say here, but like a vast amount of the laws in this country, it`s the ones that aren`t always made public that can catch you out. This is the reason why the solicitors and lawyers exist, because it`s their job to know the ins and outs of a cats backside !!

The "Traffic Officers Companion" that I mentioned isn`t just an aide-memoire, it actually lists the points to prove governing tyre law, which is covered under Sec 27 of the Road Vehicles Construction and Use Regs 1986.

I agree that some of the stuff listed on sites like e-tyres is also lifted from this section of the Road Traffic Act, but they obviously don`t list all of it !!

If you need further proof, here is a link to the Police National Legal Database:

https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q405.htm


Have a look at bullet point 5, which again points out the requirement to " Have the base of any groove, which showed the original tread pattern clearly visible ".

So in effect, the central 3/4 of your tread pattern MUST be over 1.6mm in depth, and the outer eighths (if you like), can be under 1.6mm, to account for normal wear, AS LONG AS the base of the original groove can still be seen, ie, it can be say, 0.5mm, as long as the base of the original groove is still visible ?

I`m not on a mission here gents, I`m just trying to assist the OP, who may find himself with a £60 fine, and three points on his licence should he be stopped whilst using that tyre.

Not sure if it's just me, but surely that sentence only really makes sence if it's punctauted: Have the base of any groove, which showed the original tread pattern, clearly visible.

As the 'clearly visible' relates to the 'base of the groove'?

BTW, I don't think that anyone's on a mission and do genuinely appreciate the discussion. Things are not as clear as they seem and I hope that this benefits others too!

[dxb335d]

So guys, hands up if you think Ed's tyre is legal

[beemerbird]

Personally no, I don't believe the tyre is legal because of the inner wear which looks quite severe tbh. Surely under inflation would cause wear on both edges/shoulders of the tyre. The fact that the wear is on the inner edge implies to me that the car is 'towing in' for whatever reason. Assuming you're not carrying heavy loads in the back most of the time, then is this an alignment issue?

Whatever it is Ed, I'd feel happier if it was me, to replace the rears and investigate why the wear is so severe on the inner shoulders. They've done a good mileage imo.