beadlocks

[rick]

I have a bald 32" in the back yard - you can have it.

[sarah]

is it DOT approved, rick?

[rick]

Well, I doubt it - it's a bald retread with some of the tread missing. Might be approved as a spare?

[NAILER341]

Originally posted by rick
Well, I doubt it - it's a bald retread with some of the tread missing. Might be approved as a spare?

could i use it as a planter in my trailer park?

[mrblaine]

Originally posted by Trailbst
If they are not DOT approved, doesn't that more or less make them illegal. Just like Hydraulic steering, it's not DOT Approved, therefore illagal for street use.

There is only one DOT approved Beadlock, and that is on the Hummer. The same company who makes them will make them for you, saw an article about it in one of the mags. They are stamped with some sort of DOT nubmer on them.

Could a cop ticket you, Yes. Would he be able to tell them apart from the fakes. Maybe??

Do what you will though.

Erik

First off, I believe that the DOT publishes a set of rules or guidelines for manufacturers to follow if they wish to state that they are in fact DOT compliant. You yourself used the term "compliant". Compliant is different than legal.

If you wish to research it further, here is the specific wording from the DOT website and you can look up the rest under the rule 570.120 concerning rims-

FMVSS No. 120, Tire Selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars, 49 CFR 571.120, requires that vehicles other than passenger cars equipped with pneumatic tires be equipped with rims that are listed by the tire manufacturer as suitable for use with those tires, and that rims be labeled with certain information and establishes that these vehicles shall be equipped with tires and rims that are adequate to support the fully-loaded vehicle.

Someone would have to prove that the beadlock changed the load rating in order for it to fully violate the guideline.

All of which is moot anyway because I don't know of a single instance whereby someone received a citation specifying a code under which the citation was issued directly related to beadlocks themselves. That's the key isn't it? What would they issue the citation for outside of general unworthiness?

If you do want to split hairs, I know of another mfg of so called street legal beadlocks, three in fact.

[blkTJ]

Originally posted by mrblaine
First off, I believe that the DOT publishes a set of rules or guidelines for manufacturers to follow if they wish to state that they are in fact DOT compliant. You yourself used the term "compliant". Compliant is different than legal.

If you wish to research it further, here is the specific wording from the DOT website and you can look up the rest under the rule 570.120 concerning rims-

FMVSS No. 120, Tire Selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars, 49 CFR 571.120, requires that vehicles other than passenger cars equipped with pneumatic tires be equipped with rims that are listed by the tire manufacturer as suitable for use with those tires, and that rims be labeled with certain information and establishes that these vehicles shall be equipped with tires and rims that are adequate to support the fully-loaded vehicle.

Someone would have to prove that the beadlock changed the load rating in order for it to fully violate the guideline.

All of which is moot anyway because I don't know of a single instance whereby someone received a citation specifying a code under which the citation was issued directly related to beadlocks themselves. That's the key isn't it? What would they issue the citation for outside of general unworthiness?

If you do want to split hairs, I know of another mfg of so called street legal beadlocks, three in fact.

and there you have it. Until someone actually gets a ticket for running them it really shouldn't be a concern.

[Trailbst]

You GUYS are incredible. Don't bother answering the question correctly.

Lets see how we can skirt the law.

Go re-read my posts, all of them. I NEVER used compliant.

I said that we all try to get around things like this.


Wow, 3 whole manufacturers that are DOT approved, oh sh*t that is the word I used before.

FMVSS No. 120, Tire Selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars, 49 CFR 571.120, requires that vehicles other than passenger cars equipped with pneumatic tires be equipped with rims that are listed by the tire manufacturer as suitable for use with those tires, and that rims be labeled with certain information and establishes that these vehicles shall be equipped with tires and rims that are adequate to support the fully-loaded vehicle.

Let me pick apart that for you, can you prove to me that the tire manufacturer state that the

rims that are listed by the tire manufacturer as suitable for use with those tires

Bet you can, why, because the tires that we put in beadlocks are not designed for them. They come with a bead that mates to the rim surface.

and that rims be labeled with certain information and establishes that these vehicles shall be equipped with tires and rims that are adequate to support the fully-loaded vehicle

Let's try this one, does it have the appropriate information, probably not, because we already said that MOST, not all, of the beadlocks available are modified from the original form of the rim, so there for the information may or may not be correct.

I give a right answer, and instead of agreeing with me that that is the correct answer, you parlay off into this whole other discussion.

Whatever.

Don't worry about banning me, I'll be deleting myself from your board.

Erik

[FreeXJ]

Wow, 2 people banned him. Did you give him warning?? Why did you ban him??

[NAILER341]

it seems that he asked to be removed.

[FreeXJ]

I read the whole thing, seems like you were picking on him. Everyone had a joke to tell. He said not to bother banning him, that he would delete himself. Appears as if some of you need to pay better attention. He even said all he did was give a right answer, and that he knew that everyone flaunts the laws, including himself.

Dunno.

[JeepJunkie]

I wasnt expecting for this to cause some little fights. It appears different people have different ways of interpreting laws. Im nor really swayed either way legal or illegal. I guess it all comes down to if the cop is in the mood to give you a ticket...

and as for banned what is that about, i must say trailbst over reacted a little after all this is a forum board where people post opinions(no offense to you trailbst)......

*********************************************
He wasn't banned for his opinions, he was banned because of his attitude, the offensive language he used in his last post (which I edited out -- the context of the post remains unchanged though), and he said he would remove himself anyway. I just saved him some work.

--goodtimes

**********************************************

[FreeXJ]

Banned, if it's like other BBs, means he can't get on the site anymore, no more posts by him, no logging in for him, etc.....

IMHO, I think it was a bit strong, but he was getting pinged on by everyone, except you JeepJunkie.

[71.cj5]

Looks to me like you were Ruthless. Even the girls got in on the act.

[NAILER341]

Don't worry about banning me, I'll be deleting myself from your board.

as you can see by this quote... he was asking to be removed.
there were a number of opinions about this subject.. none of which are acurate, except the ones that stated they are opinions.
this thread will now be closed.