Dodgy Road Worthy

[troy_slip]

Hi,

A question about a Victorian Road worthy certificate.

I purchased a Mondeo Zetec 09 that was supplied with a road worthy, I took it for a tyre check up at Beaurepaires. They told me that the back tyres are bold and all 4 are the wrong load rating, they gave me a report on that.*

The tyres that are on are:
Dunlop SP Sport 3000A 235/45 R17 94W .
Beaurepaires said that the manufactures load limit is 97 and not 94, are they correct on.

Spoke to the mechanic who didn't want to hear any of it, his excuse that maybe the 60 yr old seller or myself either did burns outs or changed the tyres as he has photos of the back tyres that just passed RW. 400k's have been done since his inspection.

I called Vic Roads who told me to send a copy of the RWC and copy from Beaurepairs so they can investigate and hopefully take his licence. Do you think VicRoads will only check the tyres or do a full RW check to see what else is wrong. Also will Vic Roads actually take away the mechanics licence or just warn him.

I then have to lodge a VCAT claim to recover the cost of the new tyres I will have to puchase.

Do I have a case with Vic Roads and VCAT or am I wasting my time, any advice?

Thank you.

[uniacidz]

It could be that mechanic has the photos.

Why didnt you check the load rating inside the door and/or the tyre load rating should be in the booklet.

Beaurepairs would want a sale, mechanic would want the work (prob not now though)

[burnz]

Originally Posted by troy_slip

Hi,

A question about a Victorian Road worthy certificate.

I purchased a Mondeo Zetec 09 that was supplied with a road worthy, I took it for a tyre check up at Beaurepaires. They told me that the back tyres are bold and all 4 are the wrong load rating, they gave me a report on that.*

The tyres that are on are:
Dunlop SP Sport 3000A 235/45 R17 94W .
Beaurepaires said that the manufactures load limit is 97 and not 94, are they correct on.

Spoke to the mechanic who didn't want to hear any of it, his excuse that maybe the 60 yr old seller or myself either did burns outs or changed the tyres as he has photos of the back tyres that just passed RW. 400k's have been done since his inspection.

I called Vic Roads who told me to send a copy of the RWC and copy from Beaurepairs so they can investigate and hopefully take his licence. Do you think VicRoads will only check the tyres or do a full RW check to see what else is wrong. Also will Vic Roads actually take away the mechanics licence or just warn him.

I then have to lodge a VCAT claim to recover the cost of the new tyres I will have to puchase.

Do I have a case with Vic Roads and VCAT or am I wasting my time, any advice?

Thank you.

you bought a car with bald tires?
the tires that are on it are fine, your using a technicality to get new tires.

so how do I hit the seller up for new tires? as I cant afford new ones.

[troy_slip]

Beaurepaires told me the back tyres are bald, it's not only the issue of load rating. You call it a technicality, but if the load rating is wrong then they are not RW and I'm not insured. That's a big issue.

I didn't check the tyres when I purchased the car as the seller supplied a RWC, I assumed it's legit, only went to Beurepaires for an alignment and then this all happened.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by burnz

you bought a car with bald tires?
.

nope, he bought a car with 'bold' tyres.

anywho...

as mentioned above, the load rating for your cars tyres will be on the plaque inside one of the doors (or possibly glovebox) or in the manual. its not hard to check.

who buys a car without checking the basics like tyre tread??? also, its front wheel drive so would really like to know how a burnout could've worn out the rear tyres.

[troy_slip]

Originally Posted by prydey

nope, he bought a car with 'bold' tyres.

anywho...

as mentioned above, the load rating for your cars tyres will be on the plaque inside one of the doors (or possibly glovebox) or in the manual. its not hard to check.

who buys a car without checking the basics like tyre tread??? also, its front wheel drive so would really like to know how a burnout could've worn out the rear tyres.

I just checked the plaque is shows that 235/45 R17 Tyres need a 97 rating.
When I say Bold, I don't mean slicks with no tread, "Bold" is just the expression used, there is tread. I'm not mechanically minded so I took the RWC Supplied as confirmation that the tyres are all good. And yes on the point about burn outs on the front, I didn't think of that false reason, thanks.


I'm just going to send the copy of the RWC and Beaurepaires Report to VicRoads and let them determine the outcome, if the Mechanic is correct he has nothing to fear, I'll replace the tyres regardless after VicRoads (I'm sure they want to see the current tyres).
I'm only taking these actions as they have been raised.
I'll post the outcome.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by troy_slip

When I say Bold, I don't mean slicks with no tread, "Bold" is just the expression used, there is tread.

or 'bald' even

[troy_slip]

Originally Posted by prydey

or 'bald' even

Noted, it should be "Bald" and not "Bold"

[KIWI-1]

Vicroads made changes in 2011 that require certain before and after photos to be taken so there may be photos of the tyres. Do you have a copy of the RWC?

[svo supporter]

Personally I'd be sending all the relevant info to Vic roads and query them over the tyre issue.....You should be able to request a full roadworthy to be done again, just to make sure the car is fully roadworthy. Having it done by Vic roads mechanics would mean it's a little tougher...(in theory)

One other thing....Isn't the Mondeo Front wheel drive? Makes that burnout theory a little suspicious....

[KIWI-1]

Originally Posted by svo supporter

Having it done by Vic roads mechanics would mean it's a little tougher...(in theory)

Probably not.
I know of 2 mechanics who stopped doing them when the system changed. One is the most honest mechanic I have met, but the increased time, paperwork, IT requirements... and risk wasn't worth it.

[svo supporter]

Originally Posted by KIWI-1

Probably not.
I know of 2 mechanics who stopped doing them when the system changed. One is the most honest mechanic I have met, but the increased time, paperwork, IT requirements... and risk wasn't worth it.

Don't Vicroads have their own inspection centre? You seem to be mentioning the general approved workshop, rather than a Vicroads inspection centre

[KIWI-1]

Not sure if they still do?
The licenced vehicle tester is required to take the following minimum photos:
- the whole vehicle at the testing premises
- the VIN
- the odometer
- the vehicle on the hoist/pit
- the vehicle on the hoist/pit with wheels removed for brake inspection if this was done
- photos showing repairs if a retest was required.

So there may be photos that could identify the tyres at time of inspection.

[gsd112]

Are you sure its 97? Im sure my old work mondeo zetec 2009 had 94 from factory. And you believe beaurepairs, my sprinter work van went in for a wheel alignment as well got a call all 4 tyres needed changing (lease vehicle) as they were not roadworthy. I went back and checked and they all had over around 2mm left to the wear indicators, then they said well they are close. But they still weren't unroadworthy but due to it being a lease vehicle they were changed.

[KIWI-1]

Well spotted gsd112.
The Bridgestone online catalogue lists 94s.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by KIWI-1

Well spotted gsd112.
The Bridgestone online catalogue lists 94s.

well your not going to get a 45 series sport tire with a 97 load rating.
as for 2009 do you need a RWC as its not needed for 5 years??

[Mechan1k]

Originally Posted by burnz

well your not going to get a 45 series sport tire with a 97 load rating.
as for 2009 do you need a RWC as its not needed for 5 years??

Pretty sure the Maxxis MA-Z1 and Kumho KU31 are 97+ in a 235/45R17 sizing

[burnz]

Originally Posted by Mechan1k

Pretty sure the Maxxis MA-Z1 and Kumho KU31 are 97+ in a 235/45R17 sizing

are you sure?
doesn't sound right to me, im thinking 55/60 series.

[Mechan1k]

Originally Posted by burnz

are you sure?
doesn't sound right to me, im thinking 55/60 series.

Kumho Ecsta SPT KU31 - 235/45 R17 97 W - from the Kumho website.

Maxxis MA-Z1 - 235/45R17 97 W (and Y rating as well) - from the Maxxis website.

I have run the Maxxis and the Kumho ... and both are excellent well priced entry-mid level performance tyres ... both can kinda get noisy nearing end of life (or if balance/alignment is not kept up).

Wet grip for both is excellent.

[KIWI-1]

Need a RWC in Vic. when changing owners.

[gtxb67]

is the tread depth on the tyres illegal
maybe the mechanic has made an error with the load rating - maybe, maybe not
if he has made a genuine error, is it worth getting him into trouble

normally i hate mechanics because most do not do their job properly, but if he has made a simple, yet silly oversight, getting vic roads in is maybe a little unfair

[troy_slip]

Originally Posted by gtxb67

is the tread depth on the tyres illegal
maybe the mechanic has made an error with the load rating - maybe, maybe not
if he has made a genuine error, is it worth getting him into trouble

normally i hate mechanics because most do not do their job properly, but if he has made a simple, yet silly oversight, getting vic roads in is maybe a little unfair

I tried to discuss it with him twice, he didn't want to be reasonable as he just gave the excuse that the tyres where RW when he inspected them and that they either where changed or did burn outs. I told him I didn't want to take it further, his reply was to go ahead.

I don't think tread depth can be an oversite. What else could he have passed when he shouldn't have.
On the note of load rating, it's his job to know that, he's oversite could cost me dearly if an accident occured I am not covered because of the tyres.

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by troy_slip

I tried to discuss it with him twice, he didn't want to be reasonable as he just gave the excuse that the tyres where RW when he inspected them and that they either where changed or did burn outs. I told him I didn't want to take it further, his reply was to go ahead.

I don't think tread depth can be an oversite. What else could he have passed when he shouldn't have.
On the note of load rating, it's his job to know that, he's oversite could cost me dearly if an accident occured I am not covered because of the tyres.

i didn't suggest tread depth was an oversight
i suggested if the tread depth was in fact legal (albeit on the limit), then the rating might have been an oversight


while mechanics can be the scum of the earth, they no doubt have many people not only wasting their time, but also accusing them of things they had nothing to do with. if he knows the tread was legal and believes the rating was, of course he is not going to be happy from someone quoting the beaurepairs guy


so is it worth giving him major grief over it - maybe, maybe not, but once vic roads are involved, their involvement cannot be reversed

[uniacidz]

Thing is on this, at the time of inspection it could of had road legal tyres front and back.

Prior owner/dealer may have changed them over afterwards and or put on roadworthy wheels/tyres for the inspection and replaced with the dodgy wheels/tyres afterwards.

Are the current tyres down to their wear indicator?

[prydey]

Originally Posted by uniacidz

Thing is on this, at the time of inspection it could of had road legal tyres front and back.

Prior owner/dealer may have changed them over afterwards and or put on roadworthy wheels/tyres for the inspection and replaced with the dodgy wheels/tyres afterwards.

Are the current tyres down to their wear indicator?

ahh, i didn't think of this scenario.

this is quite possibly the closest to the actual truth. wouldn't be the first time the car that passed the roadworthy was different spec to the one that got sold. perhaps the tyres the inspector saw were in fact legal and the correct load rating.

pictures would tell a much better story.

[gsd112]

Originally Posted by uniacidz

Thing is on this, at the time of inspection it could of had road legal tyres front and back.

Prior owner/dealer may have changed them over afterwards and or put on roadworthy wheels/tyres for the inspection and replaced with the dodgy wheels/tyres afterwards.

Are the current tyres down to their wear indicator?

A mate of mine bought a XB 351 probably 20 yrs ago and in the test drive the thing hauled and it had a Holley 750DP big hydraulic cam all the gear but when he picked it up and on the drive home it wouldnt pull the skin off a rice pudding. The next day i had a look and the 750 DP had been removed and a 600 VC was fitted and the secondaries werent opening, cant trust anyone. And we got the 750 dp re fitted days later...

[nstg8a]

What lead to a wheel alignment being needed?

If they were marginal at rwc time, (as tester claimed) then another 400kms of driving on a car that needed a wheel alignment would easily account for significant wear and tear.
If the alignment is a lot out of course.

[uniacidz]

Unfortunately theres alot of dodgy people out there, and in these times seem to be even more dodgy persons to save a buck or two.

[Superoo]

My MA Mondeo is definitely 97.
The OEM's were RE050A's. Michelin PS3's and a few Bridgestones are 97 load rated in their 235/45/17 sizes.

[BigCav]

why not post some pics of the tyre tread, showing the wear indicators?