Shop knowing better then me?

[Peteoz]

You know that somewhere sometime in the future, there's going to be a accident involving a spyder running vehicle tires and the victims are going to hire an attorney who will reach out to find the deepest pockets possible. Afterwards we'll have to take our car tires and rims to Mexico to get them mounted. CA will likely be the first state to pass a law against placing/installing car tires on a motorcycle.

I would agree if we were running on motorcycle rims, 2dogs, but we aren’t. We are running “special” motorcycle tyres (Can Am covering their backside by using “special” ) on J type car/light truck rims. That means that we are simply replacing the stock OEM tyres with tyres of a higher spec, which you are perfectly entitled to do. That has been confirmed by an insurance assessor out here with one of the largest insurance firms. (The one I am insured with . )
I do agree completely however that sooner or later there will be some kind of suit against someone running a car tyre on a two wheel motorcycle specific rim.

Pete

[BLUEKNIGHT911]

I would agree if we were running on motorcycle rims, 2dogs, but we aren’t. We are running “special” motorcycle tyres (Can Am coveting their backside by using “special” ) on J type car/light truck rims. That means that we are simply replacing the stock OEM tyres with tyres of a higher spec, which you are perfectly entitled to do. That has been confirmed by an insurance assessor out here with one of the largest insurance firms. (The one I am insured with . )
I do agree completely however that sooner or later there will be some kind of suit against someone running a car tyre on a two wheel motorcycle specific rim.

Pete

…. Here in the U.S. the Moss Magnussen act, causes anyone who challenges what you were using ( ie auto tires ) to PROVE they were the cause of the accident..... I've testified many, many times in court and from what I've learned it would be extremely difficult to prove a BETTER tire was the problem ….. jmho ….. good luck …. Mike

[2dogs]

Quote Originally Posted by Peteoz View Post

I would agree if we were running on motorcycle rims, 2dogs, but we aren’t. We are running “special” motorcycle tyres (Can Am coveting their backside by using “special” ) on J type car/light truck rims. That means that we are simply replacing the stock OEM tyres with tyres of a higher spec, which you are perfectly entitled to do. That has been confirmed by an insurance assessor out here with one of the largest insurance firms. (The one I am insured with . )
I do agree completely however that sooner or later there will be some kind of suit against someone running a car tyre on a two wheel motorcycle specific rim.

Pete
…. Here in the U.S. the Moss Magnussen act, causes anyone who challenges what you were using ( ie auto tires ) to PROVE they were the cause of the accident..... I've testified many, many times in court and from what I've learned it would be extremely difficult to prove a BETTER tire was the problem ….. jmho ….. good luck …. Mike

BRP will never back off of "special," and I wouldn't want to be the defendant in the first civil case. "Difficult to prove," maybe, but still possible if enough money is involved.

[PMK]

it exactly said "rear tire - set pressure to 18lbs(customer supplied tire)"

Inflate rear tire to 18 PSI per customer request

Tech notes: Unable to set rear tire pressure to 18 PSI, too far below spec. Set pressure to * PSI per manufacturer recommendations

What is the recommended pressure from the mfg for an auto tire on a Spyder? And where do you find it?

As I mentioned before, the tech has the ability to override the service writer and even the customer when the request deviates from approved tech pubs.

We often deal with similar types of concerns regarding aircraft maintenance. For comparison, a private aircraft arrives for an inspection or repair. The customer completes incoming paperwork regarding the requested workscope. As techs, we have to utilize approved manuals and documents. These could include items such as tire pressures. If a customer requested a lower tire pressure, regardless of the reason, it is very certain it would still be inflated to the books published pressure, and signed off referencing that. If the customer wanted less pressure, he or she can adjust it to whatever they believe. The risk to the tech may be low, but the risk vs reward makes it not worthwhile.

When we find safety of flight items during repairs and the customer will not repair them, so be it, but each item is noted that the customer has been advised and elects to take as is, which is then signed by the customer. If unairworthy items are found during an inspection and the customer refuses to repair them, the customer is given a list of completed work and a list of discrepencies. This info is then entered as a logbook entry that essentially renders the aircraft unairworthy until the discrepencies are corrected. Again it is about risk vs reward.

[Baron14y]

As I mentioned before, the tech has the ability to override the service writer and even the customer when the request deviates from approved tech pubs.

As I said before, show me a tech publication for tire pressures on a Spyder for a car tire.

[PMK]

As I mentioned before, the tech has the ability to override the service writer and even the customer when the request deviates from approved tech pubs.

As I said before, show me a tech publication for tire pressures on a Spyder for a car tire.

Agree, there is none and why many shops refuse to install a car tire for you. There is no official data that indicates a car tire is safe, although for many years we have installed them. Not saying what you have or the pressure you prefer does not work for you. It all reverts away from skill and becomes a focus on liability.

So now you know, plan to adjust your tire pressures to your spec after that shop works on your Spyder.

If you had the work done at Broward Motorsports Hobe Sound, be grateful you did not get 100 psi in that tire.

[Peteoz]

BRP will never back off of "special," and I wouldn't want to be the defendant in the first civil case. "Difficult to prove," maybe, but still possible if enough money is involved.

Yeah, I understand exactly what you are saying, 2dogs. From my perspective, I believe the chances of that happening are miniscule, so I am comfortable........but........if BRP made a better, more robust tyre as an option to the Kenda, I would be using ONLY that tyre, not aftermarket. I am sure others are the same. I wonder if BRP realise how much ongoing revenue they are missing out on by only providing a Kenda/Arachnid?

Pete

[glennm]

I find it puzzling why they provide you with alternatives for oil and other items but not for tyres. I would have thought as long as the replacement meets (preferably) exceeds the minimum requirements all should be good. Oil doesn't need to be a specific brand nor globe replacements, nor brake fluid etc. and yet they are very specific in relation to the tyres.

[2dogs]

Tires are the only contact you have with the pavement and therefore are just as important safety wise as brakes, followed closely by shocks and hem links. That's why BRP refers to their choice of tires as "special."

[IdahoMtnSpyder]

I find it puzzling why they provide you with alternatives for oil and other items but not for tyres. I would have thought as long as the replacement meets (preferably) exceeds the minimum requirements all should be good. Oil doesn't need to be a specific brand nor globe replacements, nor brake fluid etc. and yet they are very specific in relation to the tyres.

Tires are the only contact you have with the pavement and therefore are just as important safety wise as brakes, followed closely by shocks and hem links. That's why BRP refers to their choice of tires as "special."

I have no idea if other countries have accepted or adopted US regulations. The use of "Special Motorcycle Use" is not BRP covering their behind, but rather it's the tire maker complying with US regs. Every tire made for sale in the US must be labeled for its intended use. This is done by the tire designator such as "P" for passenger cars, "LT" for light truck, and so on. Other designations may be spelled out more completely like motorcycle tires. The tire manufacturer is required to state, and test for, which vehicles they intend the tire to be used on. Apparently no other tire maker other than Kenda and Arachnid (I think) have done so with regard to use on a Spyder, or Slingshot. BRP probably had to pay up front the cost of doing so because the market volume most likely could not be counted on to do so. So, until someone like General or Cooper determines the market is large enough to be profitable, and is willing to make a tire that is sized specifically for the Spyder, and perform the necessary analysis and testing to show that it is suitable to use on a Spyder, we will not see any other tire officially listed as a Spyder tire.

Think about how fickle American buyers can be. You think they will want to put a tire on their car that has a "P" designation but is followed by "Suitable for special motorcycle use"? And if Cooper is making a run of 100,000 of a certain car tire size do you really think they'll take the time and expense of halting production to change the designator from "P" to "Special motorcyle use" for about 5,000 more tires?

Keep in mind, market volume and revenue dictate the availability of any product. US federal safety regulations dictate the labels.

To move into the arena of speculation what if Honda or HD engineers have determined that a different design of tire would actually work best on the rear of a two wheeler? Do you really think they would want to jump through all the marketing a regulatory hoops to get one made and approved, only to sell maybe 5,000 of them? I don't know but I'm guessing that trike converters have gotten a special dispensation from NHTSA to allow car tires on the fixed axle of trikes. Doing so lets them escape the jungle of marketing costs and profitability of tires specific for trikes. Could BRP have done that at the outset of designing and marketing the Spyder? Maybe, but maybe no tire manufacturer other than Kenda was willing to work with them, or to go on record saying their car tire was suitable for a "light weight go-kart".

[2dogs]

I have no idea if other countries have accepted or adopted US regulations. The use of "Special Motorcycle Use" is not BRP covering their behind, but rather it's the tire maker complying with US regs. Every tire made for sale in the US must be labeled for its intended use. This is done by the tire designator such as "P" for passenger cars, "LT" for light truck, and so on. Other designations may be spelled out more completely like motorcycle tires. The tire manufacturer is required to state, and test for, which vehicles they intend the tire to be used on. Apparently no other tire maker other than Kenda and Arachnid (I think) have done so with regard to use on a Spyder, or Slingshot. BRP probably had to pay up front the cost of doing so because the market volume most likely could not be counted on to do so. So, until someone like General or Cooper determines the market is large enough to be profitable, and is willing to make a tire that is sized specifically for the Spyder, and perform the necessary analysis and testing to show that it is suitable to use on a Spyder, we will not see any other tire officially listed as a Spyder tire.

Think about how fickle American buyers can be. You think they will want to put a tire on their car that has a "P" designation but is followed by "Suitable for special motorcycle use"? And if Cooper is making a run of 100,000 of a certain car tire size do you really think they'll take the time and expense of halting production to change the designator from "P" to "Special motorcyle use" for about 5,000 more tires?

Keep in mind, market volume and revenue dictate the availability of any product. US federal safety regulations dictate the labels.

To move into the arena of speculation what if Honda or HD engineers have determined that a different design of tire would actually work best on the rear of a two wheeler? Do you really think they would want to jump through all the marketing a regulatory hoops to get one made and approved, only to sell maybe 5,000 of them? I don't know but I'm guessing that trike converters have gotten a special dispensation from NHTSA to allow car tires on the fixed axle of trikes. Doing so lets them escape the jungle of marketing costs and profitability of tires specific for trikes. Could BRP have done that at the outset of designing and marketing the Spyder? Maybe, but maybe no tire manufacturer other than Kenda was willing to work with them, or to go on record saying their car tire was suitable for a "light weight go-kart".

I understand, and I agree with you, even though they came up with an almost useless (worthless) product. 6k to 7k miles and they're worn out. The expense of just having a BRP dealership remove and replace a Kenda on the back of your spyder is worth more than the tire(s) itself. That just seems to be out of balance somehow.

[glennm]

I have no idea if other countries have accepted or adopted US regulations. The use of "Special Motorcycle Use" is not BRP covering their behind, but rather it's the tire maker complying with US regs. Every tire made for sale in the US must be labeled for its intended use. This is done by the tire designator such as "P" for passenger cars, "LT" for light truck, and so on. Other designations may be spelled out more completely like motorcycle tires. The tire manufacturer is required to state, and test for, which vehicles they intend the tire to be used on. Apparently no other tire maker other than Kenda and Arachnid (I think) have done so with regard to use on a Spyder, or Slingshot. BRP probably had to pay up front the cost of doing so because the market volume most likely could not be counted on to do so. So, until someone like General or Cooper determines the market is large enough to be profitable, and is willing to make a tire that is sized specifically for the Spyder, and perform the necessary analysis and testing to show that it is suitable to use on a Spyder, we will not see any other tire officially listed as a Spyder tire.

Think about how fickle American buyers can be. You think they will want to put a tire on their car that has a "P" designation but is followed by "Suitable for special motorcycle use"? And if Cooper is making a run of 100,000 of a certain car tire size do you really think they'll take the time and expense of halting production to change the designator from "P" to "Special motorcyle use" for about 5,000 more tires?

Keep in mind, market volume and revenue dictate the availability of any product. US federal safety regulations dictate the labels.

To move into the arena of speculation what if Honda or HD engineers have determined that a different design of tire would actually work best on the rear of a two wheeler? Do you really think they would want to jump through all the marketing a regulatory hoops to get one made and approved, only to sell maybe 5,000 of them? I don't know but I'm guessing that trike converters have gotten a special dispensation from NHTSA to allow car tires on the fixed axle of trikes. Doing so lets them escape the jungle of marketing costs and profitability of tires specific for trikes. Could BRP have done that at the outset of designing and marketing the Spyder? Maybe, but maybe no tire manufacturer other than Kenda was willing to work with them, or to go on record saying their car tire was suitable for a "light weight go-kart".

I get all that however I don't see anywhere else where they specify a particular brand as a must have. Surely it should be as elsewhere i.e. a minimum standard and a requirement to meet or exceed that standard. There are other manufacturers with tyres matching the size and speed rating parameters for the Spyders and according to most it would seem are far better than the Kendas in every respect. Other than they are apparently crap how are the Kendas different to a normal car tyre mounted on a car rim? It would be nice to have a choice without having to worry about legal implications. Just my thoughts.

[IdahoMtnSpyder]

It would be nice to have a choice without having to worry about legal implications. Just my thoughts.

Yes it would be. But what we see here is the age old problem of how do you write regulations to weed out bad actors without inadvertently weeding out a few good actors? Given to their own devices many manufacturers will produce and sell products for purposes the product is unable to properly handle. The history of corporate concern for consumer health and safety is a long ways from being stellar. And a lot of human safety rides on tires, literally. Hence the Feds have told tire makers tell the consumer clearly what a particular tire is suitable to be used for. As soon as a manufacturer decides they can make a profit by declaring a particular tire is suitable for use on a Spyder, they will do so. BRP can't stop them.

In the case of oils there is an independent testing and analysis organization who have developed a particular standard, a standard that BRP has deemed suitable for the Spyder engine. Dozens of companies see a market sufficiently large to make it worth their effort to blend an oil to that standard. The result is we have a choice in oil.

As far as legal implications I don't think there are any for us owners. But there is for tire makers, and to a lesser extent, tire dealers. The only reason we can get tire dealers to install car tires on our Spyders is because they believe the tires, as designed and built, will work quite well on our Spyders and the potential legal ramifications are so slim it's worth it to them to install them on our Spyders. I really think the biggest reason we don't see tire companies offering tires for our Spyders is because of the Federal labeling requirements, and the market isn't lucrative enough to spend the money to comply. Remember, money drives the free market. If the Feds would allow a painted or printed suitability label on a tire we'd probably see tires labeled for Spyder use.

Write to your Congressman and get him/her to push for an exemption in the tire labeling requirement so Cooper and General and the others would be free to sell them to us without costly "Suitable for three wheel motorcycles" imprints on the tire.

[glennm]

Thanks for the detailed response Idaho.

[PMK]

I still believe that the oem Kenda tires being labeled as Motorcycle tires is to prevent accidental installation on a car rim since the tire does not comply with car tire testing standards.

If someone cares to take the time, and research the applicable CFRs, this may shed more accurate information.

This link gives the basis of what motorcycle tires are tested to, and the required markings. Possibly, the CFR details more required markings, or possibly markings that Kenda omitted.

https://ultimatemotorcycling.com/201...rds-explained/

[PMK]

https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/...ol6-sec571-119

[PMK]

The link or a copy and paste below, should be the same

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...sec571-119.pdf


VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:42 Dec 22, 2011 Jkt 223219 PO 00000 Frm 00609 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 Q:\49\X49\223219.XXX ofr150 PsN: PC150
Nat’l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., DOT
[56 FR 15294, Apr. 16, 1991, as amended at 57 FR 23963, June 5, 1992; 57 FR 28012, June 23, 1992; 58 FR 16785, Mar. 31, 1993; 60 FR 13644, Mar. 14, 1995; 69 FR 55531, 55544, Sept. 15, 2004; 71 FR 18683, Apr. 12, 2006; 71 FR 25285, Apr. 28, 2006; 73 FR 38339, July 7, 2008]
§571.119 Standard No. 119; New pneu- matic tires for motor vehicles with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kilo- grams (10,000 pounds) and motor- cycles.
S1. Scope. This standard establishes performance and marking require- ments for tires for use on motor vehi- cles with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds and motorcycles.
S2. Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to provide safe operational performance levels for tires used on motor vehicles with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds, trailers, and motor- cycles, and to place sufficient informa- tion on the tires to permit their proper selection and use.
S3. Application. This standard applies to:
(a) New pneumatic tires for use on motor vehicles with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) manufactured after 1948;
(b) New pneumatic light truck tires with a tread depth of 18/32 inch or greater, for use on motor vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less manufactured after 1948;
(c) Tires for use on special-use trail- ers (ST, FI and 8–12 rim or lower di- ameter code); and
(d) Tires for use on motorcycles man- ufactured after 1948.
S4. Definitions. All terms defined in the Act and the rules and standards issued under its authority are used as defined therein.
Light truck tire means a tire des- ignated by its manuafacturer as pri- marily intended for use on lightweight trucks or multipurpose passenger vehi- cles.
Model rim assembly means a test de- vice that (a) includes a rim which con- forms to the published dimensions of a commercially available rim, (b) in- cludes an air valve assembly when used for testing tubeless tires or an innertube and flap (as required) when used for testing tubetype tires, and (c) undergoes no permanent rim deforma-
§ 571.119
tion and allows no loss of air through the portion that it comprises of the tire-rim pressure chamber when a tire is properly mounted on the assembly and subjected to the requirements of this standard.
S5. Tire and rim matching information.
S5.1 Each manufacturer of tires shall ensure that a listing of the rims that may be used with each tire that he produces is provided to the public. For purposes of this section each rim listing shall include dimensional speci- fications and a diagram of the rim. However a listing compiled in accord- ance with paragraph (a) of this section need not include dimensional specifica- tions or a diagram of a rim if the rim’s dimensional specifications and diagram are contained in each listing published in accordance with paragraph (b) of this standard. The listing shall be in one of the following forms:
(a) Listed by manufacturer name or brand name in a document furnished to dealers of the manufacturer’s tires, to any person upon request, and in dupli- cate to: Docket Section, National Highway Traffic Safety Administra- tion, 400 Seventh Street SW., Wash- ington, DC 20590; or
(b) Contained in publications, current at the date of manufacture of the tire or any later date, of at least one of the following organizations:
The Tire and Rim Association
The European Tyre and Rim Technical
Organisation
Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers’ Asso-
ciation, Inc.
Deutsche Industrie Norm
British Standards Institution Scandinavian Tire and Rim Organization The Tyre and Rim Association of Australia
S5.2 Information contained in a pub- lication specified in S5.1(b) which lists general categories of tires and rims by size designation, type of construction, and/or intended use, shall be considered to be manufacturer’s information pur- suant to S5.1 for the listed tires, unless the publication itself or specific infor- mation provided according to S5.1(a) indicates otherwise.
S6. Requirements. Each tire shall be capable of meeting any of the applica- ble requirements set forth below, when mounted on a model rim assembly cor- responding to any rim designated by
599

VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:42 Dec 22, 2011 Jkt 223219 PO 00000 Frm 00610 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 Q:\49\X49\223219.XXX ofr150 PsN: PC150
§ 571.119
the tire manufacturer for use with the tire in accordance with S5. However, a particular tire need not meet further requirements after having been sub- jected to and met the endurance test (S6.1), strength test (S6.2), or high speed performance test (S6.3).
S6.1 Endurance.
S6.1.1 Prior to testing in accordance with the procedures of S7.2, a tire shall exhibit no visual evidence of tread, sidewall, ply, cord, innerliner, or bead separation, chunking, broken cords, cracking, or open splices.
S6.1.2 When tested in accordance with the procedures of S7.2:
(a) There shall be no visual evidence of tread, sidewall, ply, cord, innerliner, or bead separation, chunking, broken cords, cracking, or open splices.
(b) The tire pressure at the end of the test shall be not less than the initial pressure specified in S7.2(a).
S6.2 Strength. When tested in ac- cordance with the procedures of S7.3 a tire’s average breaking energy value shall be not less than the value speci- fied in Table II for that tire’s size and load range.
S6.3 High speed performance. When tested in accordance with the proce- dures of S7.3, a tire shall meet the re- quirements set forth in S6.1.1 and S6.1.2(a) and (b). However, this require- ment applies only to motorcycle tires and to non-speed-restricted tires of nominal rim diameter code 14.5 or less marked load range A, B, C, or D.
S6.4 Treadwear indicators. Except as specified in this paragraph, each tire shall have at least six treadwear indi- cators spaced approximately equally around the circumference of the tire that enable a person inspecting the tire to determine visually whether the tire has worn to a tread depth of 1.6 mm (one-sixteenth of an inch). Tires with a rim diameter code of 12 or smaller shall have at least three such treadwear indicators. Motorcycle tires shall have at least three such indica- tors which permit visual determination that the tire has worn to a tread depth of 0.8 mm (one-thirty-second of an inch).
S6.5 Tire markings. Except as speci- fied in this paragraph, each tire shall be marked on each sidewall with the information specified in paragraphs (a)
49 CFR Ch. V (10–1–11 Edition)
through (j) of this section. The mark- ings shall be placed between the max- imum section width (exclusive of side- wall 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 with- in 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 let- ters 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 identifica- tion and the DOT symbol labeling shall comply with part 574 of this chapter. Markings may appear on only one side- wall 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 con- stitute a certification that the tire conforms to applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This symbol may be marked on only one sidewall.
(b) The tire identification number re- quired by part 574 of this chapter. This number may be marked on only one sidewall.
(c) The tire size designation as listed in the documents and publications des- ignated in S5.1.
(d) The maximum load rating and corresponding inflation pressure of the tire, shown as follows:
(Mark on tires rated for single and dual load): Max load single llkg (lllb) at llkPa (llpsi) cold. Max load dual llkg (lllb) at llkPa (llpsi) cold.
(Mark on tires rated only for single load): Max load llkg (lllb) at llkPa (llpsi) cold.
(e) The speed restriction of the tire, if 90 km/h (55 mph) or less, shown as follows:
Max speed llkm/h (llmph).
(f) The actual number of plies and the
composition of the ply cord material in the sidewall and, if different, in the tread area;
600

VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:42 Dec 22, 2011 Jkt 223219 PO 00000 Frm 00611 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 Q:\49\X49\223219.XXX ofr150 PsN: PC150
Nat’l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., DOT
(g) The words ‘‘tubeless’’ or ‘‘tube type’’ as applicable.
(h) The word ‘‘regroovable’’ if the tire is designed for regrooving.
(i) The word ‘‘radial’’ if a radial tire.
(j) The letter designating the tire load range.
S6.6 Maximum load rating. If the maximum load rating for a particular tire size is shown in one or more of the publications described in S5.1(b), each tire of that size designation shall have a maximum load rating that is not less than the published maximum load rat- ing, or if there are differing published ratings for the same tire size designa- tion, not less than the lowest published maximum load rating for the size des- ignation.
S7. Test procedures.
S7.1 General conditions.
S7.1.1 The tests are performed using
an appropriate new tube, tube valve and flap assembly (as required) that al- lows no loss of air for testing of tube- type tires under S7.2, S7.3, and S7.4, and tubeless tires under S7.3.
S7.1.2 The tire must be capable of meeting the requirements of S7.2 and S7.4 when conditioned to a temperature of 35 °C (95 °F) for 3 hours before the test is conducted, and with an ambient temperature maintained at 35 °C (95 °F) during all phases of testing. The tire must be capable of meeting the re- quirements of S7.3 when conditioned at a temperature of 21 °C (70 °F) for 3 hours before the test is conducted.
S7.2 Endurance. (a) Mount the tire on a model rim assembly and inflate it to the inflation pressure corresponding to the maximum load rating marked on the tire. Use a single maximum load value when the tire is marked with both single and dual maximum load.
(b) After conditioning the tire-rim assembly in accordance with S7.1.2, ad- just the tire pressure to that specified in (a) immediately before mounting the tire rim assembly.
(c) Mount the tire-rim assembly on an axle and press it against a flat-faced steel test wheel that is 1708 mm (67.23 inches) in diameter and at least as wide as the tread of the tire.
(d) Apply the test load and rotate the test wheel as indicated in Table III for the type of tire tested conducting each
§ 571.119
successive phase of the test without interruption.
(e) Immediately after running the tire the required time, measure the tire inflation pressure. Remove the tire from the model rim assembly, and in- spect the tire.
S7.3 Strength. (a) Mount the tire on a model rim assembly and inflate it to the pressure corresponding to the max- imum load, or maximum dual load where there is both a single and dual load marked on the tire. If the tire is tubeless, a tube may be inserted to pre- vent loss of air during the test in the event of puncture.
(b) After conditioning the tire-rim assembly in accordance with S7.1.2, ad- just the tire pressure to that specified in (a).
(c) Force a cylindrical steel plunger, with a hemispherical end and of the di- ameter specified in Table I for the tire size, perpendicularly into a raised tread element as near as possible to the centerline of the tread, at a rate of 50 mm (2 inches) per minute, until the tire breaks or the plunger is stopped by the rim.
(d) Record the force and the distance of penetration just before the tire breaks, or if it fails to break, just be- fore the plunger is stopped by the rim.
(e) Repeat the plunger application at 72° intervals around the circumference of the tire, until five measurements are made. However, in the case of tires of 12 inch rim diameter code or smaller, repeat the plunger application at 120° intervals around the circumference of the tire, until three measurements are made.
(f) Compute the breaking energy for each test point by one of the two fol- lowing formulas:
(1) W = [(F × P)/2] × 10¥3 (joules) Where:
W = Breaking energy (in joules) (kJ)
F = Force in newtons (N) and
P = Penetration in millimeters (mm), or;
(2) W = (FP/2) Where:
W = Breaking energy in inch-pounds, F = Force in pounds,
P = Penetration in inches.
(g) Determine the average breaking energy value for the tire by computing
601

§ 571.119
the average of the values obtained in accordance with paragraph (f).
S7.4 High speed performance. (a) Per- form steps (a) through (c) of S7.2.
(b) Apply a force of 88 percent of the maximum load rating marked on the tire (use single maximum load value when the tire is marked with both sin- gle and dual maximum loads), and ro- tate the test wheel at 250 rpm for 2 hours.
(c) Remove the load, allow the tire to cool to 35 °C (95 °F), and then adjust
49 CFR Ch. V (10–1–11 Edition)
the pressure to that marked on the tire for single tire use.
(d) Reapply the same load, and with- out interruption or readjustment of in- flation pressure, rotate the test wheel at 375 rpm for 30 minutes, then at 400 rpm for 30 minutes, and then at 425 rpm for 30 minutes.
(e) Immediately after running the tire the required time, measure the tire inflation pressure. Remove the tire from the model rim assembly, and in- spect the tire.
TABLE I—STRENGTH TEST PLUNGER DIAMETER Tire type
Light truck .................................................. .................................................. .......................................... Motorcycle .................................................. .................................................. ......................................... ≤ 12 rim diameter code (except motorcycle) .................................................. ...................................... Tubeless:
≤ 17.5 rim diameter code .................................................. .................................................. ........... >17.5 rim diameter code, load range F or less .................................................. ........................... > 17.5 rim diameter code, load range over F .................................................. ..............................
Tube-type:
Load range F or less .................................................. .................................................. .................. Load range over F .................................................. .................................................. .....................
Plunger diameter (inches)
3⁄4 5⁄16 3⁄4
3⁄4 11⁄4 11⁄2
11⁄4 11⁄2
(mm)
19.05 7.94 19.05
19.05 31.75 38.10
31.75 38.10
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:42 Dec 22, 2011 Jkt 223219 PO 00000 Frm 00612 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 Q:\49\X49\223219.XXX
ofr150
PsN: PC150
602

Nat’l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., DOT § 571.119
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:42 Dec 22, 2011 Jkt 223219 PO 00000 Frm 00613 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 Q:\49\X49\223219.XXX ofr150 PsN: PC150
603
Tire characteristic
Plunger diameter (mm and inches)
Motorcycle
All 12 rim di- ameter code or smaller except motorcycle
Light truck and 17.5 rim diame- ter code or smaller Tube- less
Tires other than Light Truck, Motorcycle, 12 rim diameter code or smaller
Breaking Energy
J In-lbs
19.05 mm
3⁄4′′
31.75 11⁄4′′
31.75 11⁄4′′
Load Range:
A................................................. .......................... 16 150 67 600
225 2,000 293 2,600 361 3,200 514 4,550 576 5,100 644 5,700 711 6,300 768 6,800
B................................................. .......................... 33 300 C................................................. .......................... 45 400
D .................................................. ......................... ........ ..........
E .................................................. ......................... ........ ..........
F .................................................. ......................... ........ .......... G................................................. .......................... ........ .......... .......... ............
H .................................................. ......................... ........ .......... .......... ............ J................................................. ........................... ........ .......... .......... ............ .......... ............ L................................................. ........................... ........ .......... .......... ............ .......... ............ M................................................. .......................... ........ .......... .......... ............ .......... ............ N .................................................. ......................... ........ .......... .......... ............ .......... ............
7.94 5⁄16′′ mm
Tube type
Tubeless greater than 17.5 rim di- ameter code
Tube type
Tubeless greater than 17.5 rim di- ameter code
TABLE II—MINIMUM STATIC BREAKING ENERGY [Joules (J) and Inch-Pounds (inch-lbs)]
19.05 mm
3 ⁄4 ′′ J In-lbs
38.10 11⁄2′′ J In-lbs J In-lbs J In-lbs J In-lbs J In-lbs
135 1,200 203 1,800 271 2,400 338 3,000 406 3,600
768 6,800 576 5,100
38.10 11⁄2′′ mmmmmmmm
892 7,900 734 6,500 1,412 12,500 971 8,600 1,785 15,800 1,412 12,500 2,282 20,200 1,694 15,000 2,598 23,000 2,090 18,500
............ ............ .............. 2,824 ............ ............ .............. 3,050 ............ ............ .............. 3,220 ............ ............ .............. 3,389
25,000 2,203 19,500 27,000
28,500
30,000

VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:42 Dec 22, 2011 Jkt 223219 PO 00000 Frm 00614 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 Q:\49\X49\223219.XXX ofr150 PsN: PC150
§ 571.120
Description
Speed restricted service:
90 km/h (55 mph) ..........
80 km/h (50 mph) ..........
56 km/h (35 mph) .......... Motorcycle ............................. All other .................................
49 CFR Ch. V (10–1–11 Edition)
TABLE III—ENDURANCE TEST SCHEDULE
Load range
Test wheel speed
Test load: Percent of maximum load rating
km/h
r/m
I–7 hours
II–16 hours
III–24 hours
F, G, H, J, L, M, N.
F, G, H, J, L .. All ................... All ................... F .................... G .................... H, J, L, N .......
40
32 24 80 64 56 48
125
100 75 250 200 175 150
66
66
66 1 100 66 66 66
84
84
84 2 108 84 84 84
101
101 101 117 101 101 101
(Secs. 113, 201, 80 Stat. 718 (15 U.S.C. 1402, 1421); secs. 103, 112, 119, 201, 203, Pub. L. 89–563, 80 Stat. 718 (15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1421, 1423); delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50)
[38 FR 31301, Nov. 13, 1973]
EDITORIAL NOTE: For FEDERAL REGISTER citations affecting §571.119 see the List of CFR Sections Affected which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and on GPO Access.
§571.120 Tire selection and rims and motor home/recreation vehicle trailer load carrying capacity infor- mation for motor vehicles with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds).
S1. Scope. This standard specifies tire and rim selection requirements, rim marking requirements and motor home/recreation vehicle trailer load carrying capacity information.
S2. Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to provide safe operational performance by ensuring that vehicles to which it applies are equipped with tires of adequate size and load rating and with rims of appropriate size and type designation, and by ensuring that consumers are informed of motor home/recreation vehicle trailer load carrying capacity.
S3. Application. This standard applies to motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds and mo- torcycles, to rims for use on those ve- hicles, and to non-pneumatic spare tire assemblies for use on those vehicles.
S4. Definitions. All terms defined in the Act and the rules and standards issued under its authority are used as defined therein.
Rim base means the portion of a rim remaining after removal of all split or continuous rim flanges, side rings, and locking rings that can be detached from the rim.
Rim size designation means rim diame- ter and width.
Rim diameter means nominal diameter of the bead seat.
Rim width means nominal distance between rim flanges.
Rim type designation means the indus- try or manufacturer’s designation for a rim by style or code.
Weather side means the surface area of the rim not covered by the inflated tire.
S5. Requirements.
S5.1 Tire and rim selection.
S5.1.1 Except as specified in S5.1.3,
each vehicle equipped with pneumatic tires for highway service shall be equipped with tires that meet the re- quirements of §571.109, §571.119 or § 571.139, and rims that are listed by the manufacturer of the tires as suitable for use with those tires, in accordance with S4.4 of §571.109 or S5.1 of §571.119, as applicable, except that vehicles may be equipped with a non-pneumatic spare tire assembly that meets the re- quirements of §571.129, New non-pneu- matic tires for passenger cars, and S8 of this standard. Vehicles equipped with such an assembly shall meet the requirements of S5.3.3, S7, and S9 of this standard.
S5.1.2 Except in the case of a vehicle which has a speed attainable in 3.2 kil- ometers of 80 kilometers per hour or less, the sum of the maximum load rat- ings of the tires fitted to an axle shall
604
Total test revolutions (thou- sands)
352.0
282.5 211.0 510.0 564.0 493.5 423.5

[PMK]

I no longer own Kenda Spyder tires so have no means to validate some info.

The CFR has certain testing and label requirements. As I read it, the “Motorcycle Only” label on the sidewall is not required by this CFR. Possibly, Kenda has taken it upon themselves to place that on the sidewall.

Per the CFR, Kenda is required to make readily available to the public, the correct rim standards / dimensions of the rim the tire is designed to fit.

Thirdly, and this is interesting. Maybe someone can check their front and rear tires. The tires are required to have molded into them, the DOT emblem designating they are a DOT tested and approved tire design.

fourth, the tire is supposed to have the load range code molded into the sidewall.

I did not go further, but suspect the tire is labeled motorcycle only is that the tire in no way could survive the break strength of the puncturing device / test for anything more than the minimal requirements of a motorcycle tire. Certainly, if the car tire standards were researched, we would find they likely far exceed the break strength test used for motorcycle tires.

[PMK]

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...sec571-110.pdf

[PMK]

Pretty certain this would be the CFR regarding car tires, car tire testing and markings that could be compared to the previously linked CFR regarding motorcycle tires.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...sec571-139.pdf

This document / CFR is referenced in the above document.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...sec571-109.pdf

[IdahoMtnSpyder]

PMK, I'm sure you now know just complicated the Fed reg is with regard to tires! As with all Fed regs you have to read them several times and carefully follow the line of discussion from one section to another. I agree, one of the reasons for the "Motorcycle Use" label is to put a tire installer on notice to not install them on a car. Somewhere further down there is a requirement to label a tire for its intended use. An exception is made for passenger car tires where the "P" designation in the tire size is sufficient. The same goes for light truck tires where the LT is adequate. I think one reason for this is that the vast majority of tires are made and sold for passenger cars and light trucks. You'll find tractor tires are labeled for tractor use, and wheel barrow and ATV tires are labeled "Off road use only". "Special Motorcycle" is not a designation specifically listed in the reg but the words and use comply with the intent of the labeling reg.

I'll say it again. The only reason we don't see tires other than Kenda and Arachnid specifically sold for Spyder use is because of Federal labeling rules and market size. And since they are the only tires identified for Spyder use, BRP and dealers are not going to risk crossing paths with the regulators by installing non-Spyder identified tires.

I would caution everybody to not broadcast widely the name of any Spyder dealer or independent tire dealer who is willing to mount car tires on a Spyder rim. You can never know when some overly zealous Federal compliance officer will decide to make a name for himself/herself by jumping onto such dealer, cite them for violations of Federal regulations, and make their life miserable. Very, very, unlikely this will happen by why temp fate?

[PMK]

PMK, I'm sure you now know just complicated the Fed reg is with regard to tires! As with all Fed regs you have to read them several times and carefully follow the line of discussion from one section to another. I agree, one of the reasons for the "Motorcycle Use" label is to put a tire installer on notice to not install them on a car. Somewhere further down there is a requirement to label a tire for its intended use. An exception is made for passenger car tires where the "P" designation in the tire size is sufficient. The same goes for light truck tires where the LT is adequate. I think one reason for this is that the vast majority of tires are made and sold for passenger cars and light trucks. You'll find tractor tires are labeled for tractor use, and wheel barrow and ATV tires are labeled "Off road use only". "Special Motorcycle" is not a designation specifically listed in the reg but the words and use comply with the intent of the labeling reg.

I'll say it again. The only reason we don't see tires other than Kenda and Arachnid specifically sold for Spyder use is because of Federal labeling rules and market size. And since they are the only tires identified for Spyder use, BRP and dealers are not going to risk crossing paths with the regulators by installing non-Spyder identified tires.

I would caution everybody to not broadcast widely the name of any Spyder dealer or independent tire dealer who is willing to mount car tires on a Spyder rim. You can never know when some overly zealous Federal compliance officer will decide to make a name for himself/herself by jumping onto such dealer, cite them for violations of Federal regulations, and make their life miserable. Very, very, unlikely this will happen by why temp fate?

My take. There is no requirement towards labeling the motorcycle as Kenda does. I consider that a CYA so that if installed on a car, they are not liable. That said, reading, albeit quickly, there is no criteria for not installing a tire on the correct rim type. Time and time again, readers here have demonstrated the Spyder rim is a car profile. Going further, it seems unlikely that even the most HUTA Federal worker could site a CFR that prevents a car tire from legally being fitted to a Spyder rim.

The few things that did catch my attention, does the Kenda comply with the required DOT markings including the DOT approval, for a moto tire. If not then that becomes interesting.

Never dealt with an Arachnid or Vee Rubber tire. Are they correctly marked?

As for a shop not installing a car tire, I still hedge my bet they simply do not want to risk any liability exposure.

[Peteoz]

Yeah, it all comes down to possible legal action in the case of a failure and/or accident involving an aftermarket tyre, and I would assume that BRP have much deeper pockets than any of us. As PMK said, with their resources, BRP will undoubtedly have a lawyer who can find a loophole in ANY regulations. But then, they could probably do the same if there was a failure of their own Kenda tyre
However, that scenario is so unlikely, that it is a risk I am prepared to take for the peace of mind of having a solid tyre under me.

Pete

[Baron14y]

After three weeks, after getting rid of the Arachnid, finally got a chance to lower the pressure in my rear tire down from 32psi to 18psi. Now all three of the tires, Formoza AZ01's on the front, oem size, and Thunderer 205/55R15 on the rear are the same psi. WOW. Solid as a rock. None of the hopping around that I experienced for a while. Very happy.