I have recently had to replace a pair of perfectly good tyres for test as I was told they would fail due to them only being rated at 7.1t
When the axle weight is 7.5t.
Who knew?
It depends on whether the load index (ply rating) for single use marked is 152 -7100kg or 154 - 7500kg. Check your Plating Certificate, which is why the garage doing your MOT preparation asks for it. Without them having it to check what the tyres are plated for you are risking a failure or sometimes a refusal to test. The ‘plate’ in the cab does not have this information about tyres.
cav551:
It depends on whether the load index (ply rating) for single use marked is 152 -7100kg or 154 - 7500kg. Check your Plating Certificate, which is why the garage doing your MOT preparation asks for it. Without them having it to check what the tyres are plated for you are risking a failure or sometimes a refusal to test. The ‘plate’ in the cab does not have this information about tyres.
Yes, I have found this out.
But, maybe I’m wrong, but this is not generally known is it?
You live and learn eh
176 or 178?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Wheel Nut:
176 or 178?Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sorry, if this is directed to me or not.
Excuse my ignorance, but i don’t understand the question.
ROADRANGER:
Wheel Nut:
176 or 178?Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sorry, if this is directed to me or not.
Excuse my ignorance, but i don’t understand the question.
It’s the load rating index card from Michelin. 176 is 7.1t, 178 is 7.5t
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That Michelin chart is referring to an individual tyre’s rating. So if you managed somehow to impose 7.1 tonnes on your wheelbarrow’s single tyre then you would need it to have load index rating of 176.
This issue is nothing new it even goes back as far as the 900x20 and 1000x20 tubed tyres which dominated the market. If you look at section 7 of the HGV testers manual there are charts displaying the load rating of various tyres. Historically there were three different ply ratings available for both these sizes: 10,12,14 ply for a 900x20 and 12,14,16 ply for a 1000x20. As C&U regulations changed allowing higher gross and axle weights so became the need for higher rated tyres as front axle weights increased from the quite common 5 imperial tons to 6 tons and 16 ply tyres. The dead split 16ton 4x2 rigid offered zero tolerance for load position and was a sure fire stop to checkweigh at roadside. Some chassis offered the chance of a 6.5 ton front axle if tyre size went up to 1100x20 16 ply, however this was a noticeably larger tyre increasing overall height - very noticeably so on vehicles which had run on 900x 20 tyre only a few years before.
Move on to the low profile tyres which at least partially overcame this problem and once more various rated 275, 285, 295, 305 and 315 stroke 70 or 80 tyres became common. In recent years there have again been increases not only in front axle plated weights, but also in the weights of axle 2.
cav551:
That Michelin chart is referring to an individual tyre’s rating. So if you managed somehow to impose 7.1 tonnes on your wheelbarrow’s single tyre then you would need it to have load index rating of 176.This issue is nothing new it even goes back as far as the 900x20 and 1000x20 tubed tyres which dominated the market. If you look at section 7 of the HGV testers manual there are charts displaying the load rating of various tyres. Historically there were three different ply ratings available for both these sizes: 10,12,14 ply for a 900x20 and 12,14,16 ply for a 1000x20. As C&U regulations changed allowing higher gross and axle weights so became the need for higher rated tyres as front axle weights increased from the quite common 5 imperial tons to 6 tons and 16 ply tyres. The dead split 16ton 4x2 rigid offered zero tolerance for load position and was a sure fire stop to checkweigh at roadside. Some chassis offered the chance of a 6.5 ton front axle if tyre size went up to 1100x20 16 ply, however this was a noticeably larger tyre increasing overall height - very noticeably so on vehicles which had run on 900x 20 tyre only a few years before.
Move on to the low profile tyres which at least partially overcame this problem and once more various rated 275, 285, 295, 305 and 315 stroke 70 or 80 tyres became common. In recent years there have again been increases not only in front axle plated weights, but also in the weights of axle 2.
So you are saying the OP has been stitched up unless he has a low profile tyre on his Scammell Scarab 
Someone knows there stuff!!
Yes, I had 4 tyres with a 152 rating.
Now I have a brand new pair that have 154.
The truck passed last year with the same tyres.
As the truck and tyres were supplied by the people testing the truck, I have told them it’s down to them.
Not sure if we are going to have an argument about that yet.
My point is, I’ve been running trucks for over 30 years, and didn’t think I needed to know this ■■■■.
ROADRANGER:
I have recently had to replace a pair of perfectly good tyres for test as I was told they would fail due to them only being rated at 7.1t
When the axle weight is 7.5t.
Who knew?
Also If on aluminium wheels check the weight rating some are 3.5 tonne some are 4 tonne ,can soon catch you out when front to backing wheels round .
Would it be over cynical of me to think that maybe the dvla testers are having to find ever more inventive ways of hitting targets.
ROADRANGER:
Would it be over cynical of me to think that maybe the dvla testers are having to find ever more inventive ways of hitting targets.
Tbh the mot standard is pretty low, so as workshops have gotten better the testers have less and less work to do, add in the fact some big fleets are going to be policing their own mots soon and the testers job becomes kind of pointless.
Trickydick:
ROADRANGER:
Would it be over cynical of me to think that maybe the dvla testers are having to find ever more inventive ways of hitting targets.Tbh the mot standard is pretty low, so as workshops have gotten better the testers have less and less work to do, add in the fact some big fleets are going to be policing their own mots soon and the testers job becomes kind of pointless.
Some similaries with central gov giving less money to independent oversight by FAA and Boeing effectively signing off the 737 Max themselves.
Question:
If workshops are getting better, surely that’s at least partly due to having any former slackness picked up by independent testers?
Sent from my SM-G361F using Tapatalk
Franglais:
Trickydick:
ROADRANGER:
Would it be over cynical of me to think that maybe the dvla testers are having to find ever more inventive ways of hitting targets.Tbh the mot standard is pretty low, so as workshops have gotten better the testers have less and less work to do, add in the fact some big fleets are going to be policing their own mots soon and the testers job becomes kind of pointless.
Some similaries with central gov giving less money to independent oversight by FAA and Boeing effectively signing off the 737 Max themselves.
Question:
If workshops are getting better, surely that’s at least partly due to having any former slackness picked up by independent testers?Sent from my SM-G361F using Tapatalk
People are afraid of the annual test and Im not sure why? clean undernetah incl spray flaps, semi decent tyres, lights working and adjusted okay, nothing dripping on testers head, nothing obviosuly loose, all paperwork and sticker/tags ok plus of course tyre rating and go for it, but this should all be checked every inspection anyway.
What normally happens is boss wont spend a penny on problems found during inspection and these same problems get worse and of course cost more to fix come mot time then its done in a rush as its taking longer to repair as its more kancked than they expectd due to not having any remedial works done all year and then it goes and fails dut to a silly mistake.
Plus decent hgv techs are getting like rocking horse ■■■ so they employ anybody who can walk/talk and brath on thier own (just like drivers) which is why companies need all these silly qc checks and pre mot checks as they have had so many fails due to stupid things going wrong due to employing numpites.
The rpoof will be in the eating when more large fleets do their own mots, well not actaully an mot just vehicles have to be kept at or above mot std at all times, I can see that being fun.