 | Home > Wheels & Tyres > Tyres sticking out beyond arches? |
 
|
|
|
| custom90 Member Since: 21 Jan 2010 Location: South West, England. Posts: 20529  
|
There should be a clear vertical straight line, from the furthest horizontal protrusion of the wheel arch spat / fender to the ground.
A plumb bob is ideal. (Which isn’t the easiest way to check admittedly as you need to be parked exactly level). As far as I am aware that is how it stands, parking on the level is the difficult part. You could use a large spirit level I suppose, but again it’s the parking dead level that you’d need. I would imagine it includes the tread and sidewall, and probably listed on Gov RTA details. I expect the tread is mentioned, but as both the tread and sidewall is the tyre, it might encompass tyres should not protrude, thus including both. I expect it is listed online somewhere. No Guts, No Glory. 🇬🇧🏴🏴🏴🇮🇪🇺🇸⛽️🛢️⚙️🧰💪 |
||
10th Jan 2025 6:19pm |
|
| Likeomg Member Since: 29 Jun 2012 Location: Lake District / Newcastle Posts: 2651 
|
Think im going on for over 10 years with the twisted setup 285/60/18 nobody's ever questioned it,
What I was told long as the tread is under the arch its fine even if the sidewall bulges out a little Edit, only pics I have to hand  Click image to enlarge Click image to enlarge |
||
|
10th Jan 2025 7:07pm |
|
| hank Member Since: 12 Sep 2016 Location: South Wales Posts: 2310  
|
Mine have been like this for five years or so. ET-35 285/75/16. No police attention and never failed an MOT.
Click image to enlarge > 110 XS Double Cab |
||
|
10th Jan 2025 8:24pm |
|
| blackwolf Member Since: 03 Nov 2009 Location: South West England Posts: 17501
|
An interesting question, and one where there is a great deal of non-information on the internet. Like many, I always believed (for no particular reason) that the tread had to be inside the wing/arch/mudguard but the sidewall did not. However, prompted by your question I have done some rapid research, and I now believe that the position is as follows. Provision 63 of The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 is the relevant legislation, and states "every vehicle to which this regulation applies shall be equipped with wings or other similar fittings to catch, so far as practicable, mud or water thrown up by the rotation of its wheels or tracks." There is no doubt that a Defender (or any similar vehicle) is "a vehicle to which this regulation applies" since the exceptions are specific and unusual vehicles. So the law is clear, it is not the protrusion of the tyre which matters, it is the ejection of mud and water which must be curtailed as far as practicable. This, unfortunately, then means that only case law can provide the definitive answer. It could be argued that is is always just as "practicable" to have wheel arches/mudguards/wings which cover the whole tyre including the sidewall as it is to have such that cover the tread, BUT, if the sidewall demonstrably does not fling crud over other road users then there is no need for it to be covered. The MoT regulations are entirely different to the C&U regs, and the protrusion of tyres and effectiveness of mudguards etc is not a test item, except in the case of vehicles which are specifically legally required to have mudguards (goods vehicles over 12 tonnes, for example), or in the case that the protrusion itself actually presents a danger to pedestrians (usually it is sharp edges etc which are the problem). So your Defender should never fail an MoT because the tyres stick out but it may well still be illegal if they throw "mud or water" over other road users despite passing the MoT. There are plenty of instances of "rods" and similar cars passing the MoT with totally exposed tyres with no covering whatsoever. I'm not sure how these would fare under a C&U challenge but used on tarmac in the dry they are probably legal, but not in the wet. Link to Regulation 63 of C&U Regs 1986 (as amended) Please note that this is my interpretation and offered for information only, I am not a lawyer and I won't pay your fine! |
||
|
10th Jan 2025 8:34pm |
|
| custom90 Member Since: 21 Jan 2010 Location: South West, England. Posts: 20529
|
There is a lot involved with it, which Blackwolf has very articulately explained.
I believe part of it is due to deflection of a pedestrian or other road user should the worse happen, so if for example there was a glancing blow, it would largely deflect, hence no sharp edges as well. If the tyres stick out considerably, the likelihood of being harmed by the wheel is increased a lot. Not only that it wouldn’t deflect so much, but crush and grip being rubber also. In the States, it isn’t applicable in some States, hence why you’ll see some trucks with no fenders. Defenders can throw some nasty stones as well, so containing those are a good idea hence the mud flaps. I wouldn’t be surprised if a stone in an MTR tread, wouldn’t fly off at a speed of say 80mph +, even if the vehicle is traveling at say 50mph, and will easily smash a vehicle behinds windscreen if it went that direction. I think, much like window tint, so long as it is minimal, ideally, in the specified range it’ll be quite fine. But if it really is ridiculously out then it wouldn’t be, and it’d be more something VOSA would be onto rather than MOT. I would imagine 2” and over is asking for trouble. Plus the further they are out the more spray is also kicked up in all directions except the ground, even up the vehicles windows. This is based on my views, not definition of the exact requirements. I would say out of all LR’s I’ve seen over the years, I would say that 99% have had wheels and tyres on that are quite sensible and adequate without being too wide. You can get extended arches anyway if you really wanted to, you can then reduce the crud going up the sides as well. You’d have to be sure you didn’t get arches too wide though, or it’d look a bit odd if you had wide arches and the wheels were tucked in. 235’s on standard arches are a little bit tucked in, that’s why I like the 255’s as does Blackwolf, as they suit well I think, and are just better for footprint too, not too wide, not too narrow. Very wide tyres can also slide a lot more on tarmac especially MTR’s, though they don’t dig in as much off road, and wider tyres spread load more. There are variables between the two, some suit different terrain better than others. You don’t need spacers with 255’s either, and you still have really good steering lock. No Guts, No Glory. 🇬🇧🏴🏴🏴🇮🇪🇺🇸⛽️🛢️⚙️🧰💪 Last edited by custom90 on 10th Jan 2025 9:54pm. Edited 1 time in total |
||
|
10th Jan 2025 9:26pm |
|
| Retroanaconda Member Since: 04 Jan 2012 Location: Scotland Posts: 2667 
|
I’d have thought that good taste was enough reason to avoid it, but from what you see on the roads this obviously isn’t the case
Practicality is the other one - with wide or sticky-out tyres you will be more likely to have lots of mud up the side of the car. |
||
|
10th Jan 2025 9:29pm |
|
| blackwolf Member Since: 03 Nov 2009 Location: South West England Posts: 17501
|
^^^ And having loads of mud and filth up the side is proof absolute that you don't comply with C&U Revs and are therefore not legal!
|
||
|
10th Jan 2025 9:40pm |
|
| custom90 Member Since: 21 Jan 2010 Location: South West, England. Posts: 20529
|
Does anyone remember those Dirt Defender things? They didn’t seem to work that well for that either. No Guts, No Glory.
🇬🇧🏴🏴🏴🇮🇪🇺🇸⛽️🛢️⚙️🧰💪 |
||
|
10th Jan 2025 9:50pm |
|
| hank Member Since: 12 Sep 2016 Location: South Wales Posts: 2310
|
Ouch > 110 XS Double Cab |
||
|
10th Jan 2025 10:02pm |
|
| LR90XS2011 Member Since: 05 Apr 2011 Location: bickenhill Posts: 3649 
|
I have them and they make a big difference to how dirty the sides of the vehicle and my caravan get with slightly wider wheel/tyre combination. Cant remember now but I recall that I may have pushed my mud flaps out a bit as well. https://www.mudstuff.co.uk/products/dirt-d...VmWLIXe56v Click image to enlarge DEFENDER 90 TDCI XS, I hope everyone is well and your land rovers make you happy |
||
|
11th Jan 2025 6:07am |
|
| LR90XS2011 Member Since: 05 Apr 2011 Location: bickenhill Posts: 3649
|
https://www.instagram.com/p/DEqFuCDu1gL/ DEFENDER 90 TDCI XS,
I hope everyone is well and your land rovers make you happy |
||
|
11th Jan 2025 6:24am |
|
| TexasRover Member Since: 24 Nov 2022 Location: Paris Posts: 1101  
|
According to the law then, the wheel arches should be wide enough to catch things with the wheels at full lock, since it does not state "then the vehicle is travelling at a straight line".
Realistically it's probably only enforced at type approval phase, where there will be a lot more case study information. Aftermarket changes will be limited to MOT and insurance requirements |
||
|
11th Jan 2025 6:28am |
|
| Defenderno9 Member Since: 24 Jan 2011 Location: Whitby Posts: 20 |
Click image to enlarge Click image to enlarge Click image to enlarge Thanks all for your replies, particularly to Blackwolf for your research. I posted as I need some new tyres and am keen to ensure I keep on the right side of the law. Worst case scenario is not failing an MOT or being stopped by the law!. I have a Defender 110 Hard Top (farm vehicle) 2008 2.4 Puma and it seems wheel and tyre combos suitable for some Defenders are not suitable for others. Perhaps 200tdi, 300tdi and td5's are built differently, possibly as are 90's??????????? I bought the vehicle new with factory fitted Michelin 750 / 16 5.5"j. After a couple of years it was clear they were wearing out pretty quickly so I decided to buy some new wheels and tyres I had before - BFG 235/85 r16 which have now done 110,000 miles - only half worn but perished. I was surprised to discover there is only 20mm difference between the 750 (191mm) and the 235 tyres - 235 - 191 = 44mm. The 235mm is measured bulge to bulge/only 190mm over the treads. The 750's measure 170mm over the treads. When I bought the BFG's online I was assured they were correct for the vehicle, it seems this proved to be incorrect, trying not to make the same mistake again. Apparently 265/75 r16 is a popular fitment for Defenders but I would definitely have to lose turning circle to fit these (on different rims) and keep the whole tyre within the eyebrows. Attached photos. Original 750/16, 235/85 and illustration of my sticky out tyres +/- 5mm. Thanks Click image to enlarge Mike |
||
|
11th Jan 2025 7:50am |
|
| Retroanaconda Member Since: 04 Jan 2012 Location: Scotland Posts: 2667
|
Your issue there is the aftermarket wheels which likely have a bigger offset to improve turning circle.
With factory wheels 235/85/R16 works perfectly on the Defender, as do many other sizes, indeed it is a factory size. If you’re worried about it then get a set of Wolf/HD wheels which will take your 235s perfectly. At the cost of some steering lock. In practice your setup is unlikely to cause you any legal issues, just mess/mud. |
||
|
11th Jan 2025 9:56am |
|
|
|
| All times are GMT |
< Previous Topic | Next Topic > |
Posting Rules
|
Site Copyright © 2006-2025 Futuranet Ltd & Martin Lewis
