Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

Failed dual-sport conversion inspection: tires didn't say "for highway use"

Recommended Posts

Need some help folks! Dual-sport conversion inspection failed today because the tires didn't say "for highway use". Dunlop D606s (DOT). Inspector said that DOT wasn't good enough.

I have a TW41/TW42 set on my XR650L. They don't say "for highway use" - they have DOT on them. There are a few letters (C J N M)...do any of them count? If they are good enough for Suzuki to put on stock DRZ400S, then they should pass! I'm just trying to get educated before I challenge the inspector.

Are there any dual-sport tires out there that have "for highway use" on them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:):banghead: Challenge the inspector or report them if thats possible.

More proof our education system is failing.

If the place your getting inspected sells car tires, ask them to find one that says "for highway use"

The only tires I'm aware of that have anything highway molded on them are tires for off-road use that read "NOT for higway use"

DOT means the Department Of Transportation has aproved the tire for highway use, if the inspector has a problem with that they should take it up with the DOT:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just had my YZ inspected with Kenda tires that just say DOT. No problems. I second challenging the inspector.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's full of it. As mentioned above, I havent seen for on road use stamped on my car tires. It should be simple to find another inspector. You might even try talking to a Supervisor, but that may prompt a more thorough inspection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd expect a 'don't get fancy with me college boy' response from this inspector. What a ****ing idiot. Is there a special school where you LEARN to act stupid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ran into the same thing. Had The original Trials style tires on a Honda Reflex. Had DOT right on them. The LEO said they weren't street tires. Told him no, they are not "street" tires, they were DOT DS style tires. Said DOT didn't make any difference. Searched the web trying to find some documentation that DOT on a tire indicated it was an approved on-road tire, but didn't come up with much of anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My street tires don't even say "for highway use". :)

You might consider printing out information from the tire manufacturer's website that states that the tires are DOT approved and showing that to the idiot.....uh....I mean inspector.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats a load of crap the only thing tires say are "Not for Highway Use" or "Dirt Use Only" or something along those lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn! He's wrong, DOT and lack of 'not for highway use' is all he needs to see.

Where was this, abouts?

from:

http://www.nysdmv.com/forms/cr79.pdf

from reasons for failing a tire

"Tire does not display appropriate Department

of Transportation markings or indicates "for

off-road use," "racing use only," or similar

wording."

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

letters (C J N M)...do any of them count?

Those sound like speed ratings for DOT tires. My advice would be to take it to a different inspection station, because arguing with this guy would be like arguing with a drunk. He's wrong, but you'll never convince him. If I were you, I'd also print out everything on this forum and send to him so that he can see that everyone on here knows he's a nit wit. You might also contact Dunlop. I'll bet they'd love to know they paid to have their tires certified DOT and now the state of NY won't accept them. In the mean time, how bout his name and any other information I can use to call that inspection station and raise h*ll. The entire country is going crazy and I'm sick and tired of stupid people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went through this with an inspector that didn't like my M6006's because they look like knobbies. But I had a printout of the rule below ready because I was expecting as much. The same shop had said the same thing about my MT21's a few years before. Fortunately the other inspector at the shop said no they only have printed language if they are not DOT approved. The printed labels are a warning label not an approval. The "DOT" symbol is the approval marking.

From the Code of Federal Regulations:

49 C.F.R. § 571.119 Standard No. 119; New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars.

.

.

.

S6.5 Tire markings. Except as specified in this paragraph, each tire shall be marked on each sidewall with the information specified in paragraphs (a) through (j) of this section. The markings shall be placed between the maximum section width (exclusive of sidewall decorations or curb ribs) and the bead on at least one sidewall, unless the maximum section width of the tire is located in an area which is not more than one-fourth of the distance from the bead to the shoulder of the tire. If the maximum section width falls within that area, the markings shall appear between the bead and a point one-half the distance from the bead to the shoulder of the tire, on at least one sidewall. The markings shall be in letters and numerals not less than 2 mm (0.078 inch) high and raised above or sunk below the tire surface not less that 0.4 mm (0.015 inch), except that the marking depth shall be not less than 0.25mm (0.010 inch) in the case of motorcycle tires. The tire identification and the DOT symbol labeling shall comply with part 574 of this chapter. Markings may appear on only one sidewall and the entire sidewall area may be used in the case of motorcycle tires and recreational, boat, baggage, and special trailer tires.

(a) The symbol DOT, which shall constitute a certification that the tire conforms to applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This symbol may be marked on only one sidewall.

.

.

.

.

More here: http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title49/49-6.1.2.3.39.html#49:6.1.2.3.39.0.7.5

You might need to get the highway patrol or MVA to back you up if they really will not approve it. I think the first time I got shot down I went to the highway patrol with the flunked inspection and they did some kind of inspection of the bike that said it passed. Then I had to go back to shop and pay them more money to inspect it correctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sounds like nothing that a sharpie and some neat writing can't take of!! :):banghead:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes...I have started to see some of those newer made tires that say:

DOT - For Highway Use

BUT....the older ones all say DOT (only)

I'd go back & "nicely" challenge the guy to show you the exact wording "in the book" that street legal tires must say DOT - For Highway Use///and that all others are illegal.....because he is wrong!!

Again...nicely:thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1 what they said above

I had a Maalox moment when I got my new tires from UPS and I couldn't find the DOT markings anywhere on them - then I kind of figured out that it's the "not for highway use" that you have to worry about. I took literature from the manufacturer and retailer to the inspection just in case, but never needed to use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just crossed my mind. Did you pay for the first inspection?

If so, could'nt this just be a scam to get you to do some research and come back with proof and then they simply pass it, but you have to pay again?

Do they make any profit from inspections?

Lot of shady businesses out there, also a lot of nimrods, both are causing people to lose $$. Dirty, Dirty @$$ sweat covered money, sigh...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say title inspections are a scam in Maryland. It seems perfectly reasonable that the three estimates we got for one car were $35, $600 and $1300. Or that a boat trailer was $35 at one place and $500 at another. Surely those guys truly believed we needed all those repairs they demanded in order to pass inspection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just crossed my mind. Did you pay for the first inspection?

If so, could'nt this just be a scam to get you to do some research and come back with proof and then they simply pass it, but you have to pay again?

Do they make any profit from inspections?

Lot of shady businesses out there, also a lot of nimrods, both are causing people to lose $$. Dirty, Dirty @$$ sweat covered money, sigh...

NYS inspections, typically if you come back soon with the problem(s) fixed they do not re-charge.

Or in this case come back with 49 C.F.R. § 571.119 Standard No. 119 and NYS DMV CR79.

Dave

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where was this, abouts?

This is in Michigan; I'm helping my Dad through the process.

Just crossed my mind. Did you pay for the first inspection?

No, have not paid for any inspections yet.

The symbol DOT, which shall constitute a certification that the tire conforms to applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This symbol may be marked on only one sidewall.

grreatdog, that's grrreaaat! I think that's the approach we have to take - print out the spec and peel it out if denied again.

Also, FYI...I found in the Michigan Vehicle Code...

"Minimum 1/32 of an inch tread. No part of belting material, tire cords, or plies exposed. No evidence of ply or tread separation. Not prohibited for highway use."

Y'all are awesome. I'll let you know how it goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×