DOT Tire Testing

[Konnichiwa]

DOT is not just 3 letters manufactures arbitrarily stamp on the side-wall of new tires.

Check this 65 page document from the NHTSA about testing and info required to obtain DOT certification on tires.....

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/DO ... 109-09.pdf

Snippet:

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
(S2) FMVSS No. 109 specifies laboratory test requirements for physical dimensions (S4.2.2.2), bead unseating resistance (S4.2.2.3), tire strength (S4.2.2.4), endurance (S4.2.2.5), and high speed performance (S4.2.2.6); defines performance requirements (S4.2) including general requirements (S4.2.1) and test requirements (S4.2.2) as well as tire load ratings; and specifies labeling (or marking) requirements (S4.3).

Maybe someone can post a similar link for E-Rating on Tires? Thanks!

[Konnichiwa]

More great info I just found online.

The DOT Number: contains very important information about your tire that most people do not know is there. However, the DOT number is often found on the axle side of your tires, meaning you have to crawl under your vehicle or put the vehicle on a lift to read it. Perhaps the most important information contained in the DOT number is the date of manufacture of your tire. Many U.S. and foreign tire companies are now warning consumers in Europe and Asia to discard even new appearing tires that are five or six years from the date of manufacture. This is because the rubber and other components in tires break down over time, making older tires potentially dangerous even if they look brand new. Although manufacturers do not give similar warnings in the United States, this is likely to change as lawmakers and watchdog groups including trial lawyers put additional pressure on tire companies to follow the same safety guidelines that are applied overseas.

To determine the age of your tire, find the last three or four numbers on the DOT code – these represent the week and year the tire was built. As an example, the last three numbers "089" might signify that the tire was born on the eighth week of 1999. Unfortunately, not all manufacturers supply the decade, so this tire might be a 1999 or a 1989 model. Fortunately, the government has seen fit to resolve this confusion in the new millennium, so tires being built now have four digits: two for the week and two for the year. Be sure you know the age of your tires, and don't risk your safety for the few dollars (relative to an accident) that a new set of tires will cost. This is especially true for your spare tire. Your spare may have been exposed to the sun, or may have been placed near the heat of your exhaust pipe. If so, it is likely that the rubber compounds in your spare have been substantially weakened even if the tire looks brand new, which could cause a catastrophic failure if you later place the spare into service. If your spare is more than 5 years old, consider replacing it when you buy a new set of tires, even if the spare has never been used.

The DOT number also tells you who manufactured your tire. Many tires display brand names like Sears or Pep Boys, but neither company makes tires. To determine the actual manufacturer, look at the first two numbers of the DOT code. They are the plant code where the tire was made, so you can determine not only the company which actually made your tire, but at which plant it was build. This information is critical in the event of a problem that may required a recall.

[jessef]

Please use the SEARCH box.

Double post

http://www.delica.ca/forum/non-dot-tire ... -5606.html

[Green1]

Do you truly believe that Japan doesn't have standards for their tires?

What makes you think that the DOT standards are better than the Japanese standards? DOT tires fall apart all the time, haven't you seen all the chunks of rubber littering our highways from various blow-outs/tread separations?

The government inspectors realize that there is no safety disadvantage to the Japanese tires. And I have yet to hear of anyone experiencing a safety issue with their non-DOT tires.

Of course the same caveats apply here as with all tires, even if they are in good shape, if they are 15 years old you are taking a huge risk using them, tires degrade over time, so it's not just the tread depth you need to look at, but also the age of the tire.

This has also been discussed extensively before on this forum http://www.delica.ca/forum/non-dot-tire ... -5606.html

[Konnichiwa]

LOL, Look who are the first 2 to chime in... now all we need is the other guy :D:D:D

1) no, in Japan there is no standards for import unlike canada where it must meet certain requirements. Rating means a tire meets standards. why would a company pay more for testing and certification if they dont need to. obviously you are completely unaware about how the chinese and asian mfg's operate.

2) 4 replies is an "extensive" discussion??? LOL. my 1 post contains a million times more information that the anything i found in the search

thank you and have a great day.

[jessef]

JIS tires proven acceptable

http://www.tc.gc.ca/acts-regulations/GE ... tsr14.html

(a) it can be shown by a national safety mark, a DOT symbol as used by the United States Department of Transportation or a JIS symbol as used by the Japanese Standards Association on the tire that, at the time of manufacture, the tire conformed to the applicable standards set out in Schedule V (Safety Standard 119), the United States Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119 or the Japanese Industrial Standard JIS D 4230;

Like I said. Use the search button already.

http://www.delica.ca/forum/search-where ... -6779.html

[Konnichiwa]

JIS tires proven acceptable

http://www.tc.gc.ca/acts-regulations/GE ... tsr14.html

(a) it can be shown by a national safety mark, a DOT symbol as used by the United States Department of Transportation or a JIS symbol as used by the Japanese Standards Association on the tire that, at the time of manufacture, the tire conformed to the applicable standards set out in Schedule V (Safety Standard 119), the United States Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119 or the Japanese Industrial Standard JIS D 4230;

Like I said. Use the search button already.

Again you mixing my words in an attempt to make me look like "the bad guy"....

I am comparing tires with RATINGS (Dot, E-Spec etc).... to NON MARKED TIRES that have load rating only. My other point is DOT tires are safer than no-name tires. I completely agree with the above post.

[Konnichiwa]

JIS tires proven acceptable

http://www.tc.gc.ca/acts-regulations/GE ... tsr14.html

(a) it can be shown by a national safety mark, a DOT symbol as used by the United States Department of Transportation or a JIS symbol as used by the Japanese Standards Association on the tire that, at the time of manufacture, the tire conformed to the applicable standards set out in Schedule V (Safety Standard 119), the United States Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119 or the Japanese Industrial Standard JIS D 4230;

Like I said. Use the search button already.

http://www.delica.ca/forum/search-where ... -6779.html

Excuse me????? I am still waiting for the ICBC link you claim exists that show that only load rating is required (and everything else is optional).

Stop wasting your time trying to defame me... and cough up the link!

[jessef]

From Brian Kangas, the technical advisor ICBC :

"Tires need to indicate clearly that they meet CMVSS standards. Inspectors
and enforcement need to be able to identify the tires are safe. Load
ratings and PSI are specifically what needs to be identified. DOT indicates
clearly that the standard is met. Some E codes will have the markings as
well. If there is no way to determine the compliance, acceptable documents
certifying that the particular tire does meet CMVSS need to be provided,
similar to what happened with the JIS lenses.

The JIS marking alone is not a clear indication of the safety information.

Hope this is helpful

Brian"

Taken from Motor Vehicle Safety Act

Tires for Passenger Cars
9. (1) Every tire referred to in section 5 shall have permanently and legibly moulded into or onto

(a) both sidewalls of the tire, in letters and numerals not less than 2.0 mm (0.078 in.) in height,

(i) the tire size designation, expressed in metric units or Imperial units or both,

(ii) the maximum permissible inflation pressure, expressed in kilopascals or pounds per square inch or both,

(iii) the maximum load rating, expressed in kilograms or pounds or both,

(iv) the generic name of the material used in the cord of the sidewall and tread,

(v) the actual number of plies in the sidewall and, if different, the actual number of plies in the tread,

(vi) a word or expression indicating that the tire contains a tube or does not contain a tube, as the case may be, and

(vii) the word "radial" if the tire is a radial ply tire; and

(b) at least one sidewall of the tire,

(i) the name of the tire manufacturer, or

(ii) the brand name of the tire and the symbols that identify the tire manufacturer.

(2) In addition to the information set out in subsection (1), every tire that has a maximum permissible inflation pressure of 415 kPa (60 p.s.i.) shall have permanently and legibly moulded into or onto both sidewalls of the tire, in letters and numerals not less than 12 mm (0.5 in.) in height, words expressing a maximum permissible inflation pressure in kilopascals or in pounds per square inch, or both, between shoulder and bead of the tire in such a manner that the words are not obstructed by the rim flange.

Established by

SOR/95-148 21 March, 1995 pursuant to subsection 3 (2) and sections 5, 7, 10 and 11 of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, effective April 12, 1995

Again. Use the search. A repost again. Getting repetitive.

If you are unfamiliar with load rating/PSI and what to look for, please read here :

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiretech/ ... ?techid=35

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiretech/ ... ?techid=21

I will not post anymore on this as I have used the search button and rehashed old previously posted information you have brought up as a new member. These repetitive posts are cluttering up current discussions, issues and recent topics.

[Konnichiwa]

From Brian Kangas, the technical advisor ICBC :

"Tires need to indicate clearly that they meet CMVSS standards. Inspectors
and enforcement need to be able to identify the tires are safe. Load
ratings and PSI are specifically what needs to be identified. DOT indicates
clearly that the standard is met. Some E codes will have the markings as
well. If there is no way to determine the compliance, acceptable documents
certifying that the particular tire does meet CMVSS need to be provided,
similar to what happened with the JIS lenses.

The JIS marking alone is not a clear indication of the safety information.

Hope this is helpful

Brian"

Taken from Motor Vehicle Safety Act

Tires for Passenger Cars
9. (1) Every tire referred to in section 5 shall have permanently and legibly moulded into or onto

(a) both sidewalls of the tire, in letters and numerals not less than 2.0 mm (0.078 in.) in height,

(i) the tire size designation, expressed in metric units or Imperial units or both,

(ii) the maximum permissible inflation pressure, expressed in kilopascals or pounds per square inch or both,

(iii) the maximum load rating, expressed in kilograms or pounds or both,

(iv) the generic name of the material used in the cord of the sidewall and tread,

(v) the actual number of plies in the sidewall and, if different, the actual number of plies in the tread,

(vi) a word or expression indicating that the tire contains a tube or does not contain a tube, as the case may be, and

(vii) the word "radial" if the tire is a radial ply tire; and

(b) at least one sidewall of the tire,

(i) the name of the tire manufacturer, or

(ii) the brand name of the tire and the symbols that identify the tire manufacturer.

(2) In addition to the information set out in subsection (1), every tire that has a maximum permissible inflation pressure of 415 kPa (60 p.s.i.) shall have permanently and legibly moulded into or onto both sidewalls of the tire, in letters and numerals not less than 12 mm (0.5 in.) in height, words expressing a maximum permissible inflation pressure in kilopascals or in pounds per square inch, or both, between shoulder and bead of the tire in such a manner that the words are not obstructed by the rim flange.

Established by

SOR/95-148 21 March, 1995 pursuant to subsection 3 (2) and sections 5, 7, 10 and 11 of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, effective April 12, 1995

.

Post the link already man!

[jessef]

There you go.

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/cvse/vehicle_in ... ements.pdf

I have posted this before as have others.

If you would have used the search button or search via google, you would have come up with this link, among others from CVSE.

Now please ask the moderators to delete this entire thread with respect to all other members.

[Konnichiwa]

There you go.

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/cvse/vehicle_in ... ements.pdf

I have posted this before as have others.

If you would have used the search button or search via google, you would have come up with this link, among others from CVSE.

Now please ask the moderators to delete this entire thread with respect to all other members.

I have that link already. Very vauge. It refers to "section 5". Where is the full text of the act so I can read section 5. Not looking for snippets.

[jessef]

I don't know what you are looking for.

Please ignore all of my previous threads and posts in this entire forum over the past few years.

Call ICBC or CVSE.

Sorry guys but I will no longer respond to your comments. Seems like you are just out to provoke me rather than further an intelligent fact based, non-opinionated discussion.

I'm offended and done with this discussion.

[Konnichiwa]

I don't know what you are looking for.

Please ignore all of my previous threads and posts in this entire forum over the past few years.

Call ICBC or CVSE.

I'm offended and done with this discussion.

LOL. I should be the one who's offended... but I'm not.

If you make a claim, you should be able to prompty back it up with facts (reference).

HINT: Section 5 has important information ;) ;)

Ad nauseum, ad hominem and hearsay doesn't work with me.

[jessef]

I don't know what you are looking for.

Please ignore all of my previous threads and posts in this entire forum over the past few years.

Call ICBC or CVSE.

I'm offended and done with this discussion.

LOL. I should be the one who's offended... but I'm not.

If you make a claim, you should be able to prompty back it up with facts (reference).

HINT: Section 5 has important information ;) ;)

Ad nauseum, ad hominem and hearsay doesn't work with me.

I did back up my 'claim' with a 'reference'.

A direct email " quote " from Brian Kangas.

Read above, in past posts and below AGAIN !

From Brian Kangas, the technical advisor ICBC :

"Tires need to indicate clearly that they meet CMVSS standards. Inspectors
and enforcement need to be able to identify the tires are safe. Load
ratings and PSI are specifically what needs to be identified. DOT indicates
clearly that the standard is met. Some E codes will have the markings as
well. If there is no way to determine the compliance, acceptable documents
certifying that the particular tire does meet CMVSS need to be provided,
similar to what happened with the JIS lenses.

The JIS marking alone is not a clear indication of the safety information.

Hope this is helpful

Brian"

Email or call Brian directly to get the same email I received above.

If you speak to him like you word your posts on this forum, be prepared to be hung up on via phone and not replied to via email. He does not tolerate disinformation nor repetitiveness.

He is a good guy and has made enormous amounts of headway with IVOAC and the importation of JDM and 'other' country manufactured vehicles.

All of the information I listed, he will point you towards and please note that your questions have been answered YEARS AGO.

brian.kangas@ gov.bc.ca

This is the last post I will share with you. I don't even know who you are and I'm treating you with more respect that I normally do considering your other slandering posts.