So SGI is planning on some crazy laws.
The long and short of it is after Jan 1st 2010 you need to get any lifted 4wd safety'd. If you have tires larger than 35 inches tall you will own a RESTRICTED Vehicle. You need a restricted permit to drive it on the road.
You will be limited to 80kmh on highways posted 109kmh and lower, you will be limited to 90kmh on any highway posted 110kmh

Here is the main SGI page.

http://www.sgi.sk.ca/sgi_pub/vehicle_standards/raised-vehicle.html

Here is the draft policy.

http://www.sgi.sk.ca/sgi_pub/vehicle_standards/pdf/SGIProposedRaisedVehiclePolicyJuly2009.pdf

Please Email SGI with SENSIBLE comments, I know I wanted to tare them a new one but we have to be level headed about this.

sent my letter in

oh i know this shit is whack!!!

This is the e-mai I just sent.

I am writing in regard to your proposed after market raised vehicle legislation. For the most part your proposed regulations seem to be reasonable but the tire size restriction appears to be completely arbitrary. I have added the tire size restrictions as a quotation and will outline my concerns about this below.

> Tire size
> Current research indicates that alterations such as suspension modifications and the
> installation of after-market oversized replacement tires can lead to poor handling, an
> increased propensity for roll over, increased stopping distances, vehicle compatibility
> issues and regulatory non-compliance.
> Public consultations identified a concern with limiting tire size. A vehicle height is
> generally raised to accommodate the installation of larger tires to provide increased
> ground clearance and aesthetics. The proposed policy would not directly limit the size
> of tires that a vehicle may be equipped with. However, the size of tires that a vehicle
> could be equipped with would be limited by:
> − existing regulations (i.e., bumper heights and the requirement that a tire must not
> contact a non-rotating vehicle component);
> − a frame height grandfathering provision contained in the proposed policy;
> − the post-implementation tiered frame height limits contained in the proposed policy
> − speed restrictions, when equipped with after-market oversized replacement tires
> over 875 millimetres (35 inches) in diameter; and,
> − towing restrictions, when equipped with after-market oversized replacement tires
> over 875 millimetres (35 inches) in diameter.
> Allowing the use of after-market oversized replacement tires, but placing limits on
> speed and towing capacity, addresses the adverse effects on braking with oversized
> replacement tires and considers the expense of replacing currently permitted
> oversized replacement tires. The proposed policy provides owners the option of
> slowing down and limiting the vehicle’s gross combined weight while being able to
> use oversized replacement tires.

The proposed regulation states that installation of larger tires necessitates an increase in the height of the vehicle. This assumption ignores the fact that many new pickup trucks currently available on the market allow fitment of tires with a diameter of 35 inches without any modification to suspension or bodywork. This assumption also ignores the fact that current trends in four wheel drive truck/SUV modifications tend toward keeping the overall vehicle height as low as possible while increasing the ground clearance as much as possible. In this effort 4x4 enthusiasts are increasingly undertaking the widening of wheel well openings to fit their larger tires rather than increasing vehicle height.

The regulation also makes assumptions about the braking ability with larger tires while at the same time ignoring the fact that most often the installation of larger tires is accompanied by upgrades to the axles. The heavier duty axles most often have larger brakes which negates any supposed lost braking power caused by the larger tire diameter. It is in fact quite common for a vehicle to have better braking with larger tires specifically because of the upgraded axles and brakes. Further, most modern 4wd vehicles have much improved factory braking systems (such as four wheel disc brakes) over their earlier counterparts. As such it is not unheard of for a new 4x4 with larger tires to stop faster and safer than it's equivalent model from just a few years ago, that is equipped with factory tires.

The final assumption that the regulation makes is that the vehicle would be a hazard while towing at normal highway speeds. Quite frankly, restricting the speed to 20 km/h below that of the rest of the traffic on the highway is more dangerous than any imagined danger from the larger tires.

In addition the proposed regulation does not specify how the tire size will be determined. It is a well known fact that true tire diameters are often different than manufacturers labeling. How will this regulation be enforced? Will each police officer be equipped with a caliper or will the tire's diameter be determined from the manufacturers (often ambiguous) sidewall markings?

Overall the proposed legislation seems well balanced and thoroughly researched with the exception of the tire size restriction. If a vehicle meets the frame height, bumper height, suspension and steering criteria what need is there to restrict the tire size? Indeed, it could be said that larger tires afford increased stability as they are more often than not wider than their factory installed counterparts. I for one would be much more concerned about a vehicle that is at the maximum allowable frame height with relatively small tires installed than I would about a vehicle that is below the maximum frame height with larger tires installed.

I urge you to reconsider this part of the proposed legislation as it is unreasonable and superficial. It appears that the tire diameter restriction was included without much forethought as to the actual impact that tires larger than 35 inches diameter pose and without consideration of how it will actually be enforced.

Thank you for your time,

Paul Gagnon

Just a matter of time before they realize putting a 500 horse engine into a '60 era car or a v8 into a frame and tub isnt a "playground safe" thing and outlaw musle cars and rods.
Kalifornia here we come.....

Why the hard on for 4x4's this year and no focus on everyone else?

Too many "rig kids" with too much munny and not enough brains in lifted truck fawking it up for the real wheelers?:shaking:

Send comments here: raisedvehiclefeedback@sgi.sk.ca

Tks Paul,

I love 4x4ing and it sucks big time with all the land restrictions we are facing.
I have a rig on 42's, bias ply tsl's that I trailer to and from the trails that we have left.

But I personally don't think every jeep or truck on 42's or bigger is safe ripping down the road at 130.(well built rigs MAYBE,,but still)

I'd say 37in AT's aren't too bad at that speed on a rig truck,but what should
the limit be??(I think it should be bigger than 35's,,, 38's maybe?? 66's ??)

Or should we just let every back yard engineer, that can scab some 49inch
irocs on to there POS cruise down the road like they own it??
(and there still going to let people drive that shit as they slow down a bit)

The safty inspection is a good idea. If your Rig is Safe it will pass,,, so don't worry.

Flame suit on:homer:

YouTube - Cricket Sound (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg)

I love 4x4ing and it sucks big time with all the land restrictions we are facing.
I have a rig on 42's, bias ply tsl's that I trailer to and from the trails that we have left.

But I personally don't think every jeep or truck on 42's or bigger is safe ripping down the road at 130.(well built rigs MAYBE,,but still)

I'd say 37in AT's aren't too bad at that speed on a rig truck,but what should
the limit be??(I think it should be bigger than 35's,,, 38's maybe?? 66's ??)

Or should we just let every back yard engineer, that can scab some 49inch
irocs on to there POS cruise down the road like they own it??
(and there still going to let people drive that shit as they slow down a bit)

The safty inspection is a good idea. If your Rig is Safe it will pass,,, so don't worry.

Flame suit on:homer:A safety inspection is a good idea. Nobody is saying it should be a free for all. What is happening with this new regulation is that regardless of whether you meet the frame height, bumper height, steering or suspension specifications you will be disqualified and need a special permit if you have tires larger than 35" diameter. That rule by itself negates the rest of the safety inspection process outlines in the new regulation because it supercede all others.

What is happening with this new regulation is that regardless of whether you meet the frame height, bumper height, steering or suspension specifications you will be disqualified and need a special permit if you have tires larger than 35" diameter. That rule by itself negates the rest of the safety inspection process outlines in the new regulation because it supercede all others.


Your right, that part should change,35's are pretty small.But there does need to some sort of limit IMO.IF we acctually had a say and the Canadian 4wheelers could regulate how we wanted, should there be a tire limitation size?? And what size should it be?? Or if interco comes out with some DOT approved 89in boggers and you meet all other requirments,should you just be treated like an ordinary passanger vehicle?? Or more like a tractor??

The way I understand it these rigs will be still beable to drive on Public roads,they'll just need special permits and need to slow down to 80km/h which I don't think is a bad idea,,I do how ever agree that the 35inch is too small.

I think 38.5 would be a reasonable size for a passanger vehicle driving 120km's,,,,but 53in XML's ridiculous.IMO

I am very sinnacle about the government listening to it's tax paying slaves,But I applaud your efforts.Maybe if we could get some gay rwandan refugee's on welfare to support the cause,we might have a chance.


But I do value other Canadian offroad enthusiasts opion on matters like this,thats the only reason I posted.

Cheers.

I sent in my views, but I definately agree with the mudmandan on the 38.5 size.....superduty's can run 37's with a leveling kit.

I received an e-mail update yesterday. Looks like people's comments may have helped to bring about further discussion on this issue. Good job everyone who participated. We can make a difference! We will still have to keep an eye on it though since it is going to be discussed by a national body. Hopefully they will also allow public input.

After-market raised vehicle policy update

Please be advised that SGI is postponing the adoption of a raised
vehicle policy to take the opportunity to participate on the Canadian
Council of Motor Transport Administrators (CCMTA) Excessively-Raised
Vehicle Working Group.

The CCMTA convened the working group in September 2009 with a mandate
to develop a national best practice for the regulation of
excessively-raised vehicles.

SGI’s involvement on the working group is a continuation of our
efforts to develop a balanced and responsible raised vehicle policy that
is consistent with other jurisdictions.

Thank you to everyone who provided feedback on the proposed policy and
who participated in the public consultations.

Please be assured that SGI will advise stakeholders prior to the
implementation of a raised vehicle policy.

For more information on the CCMTA, please visit their website at
www.ccmta.ca.

I was just going to update this myself.
Thanks for all who have posted and given SGI feedback.
Im quite relived that this is being postponed and going to a provincial wide level, Ive got my fingers crossed that the 35 inch rule is going to go. 38.5 would be mint.

Here is what im fighting for:
88 w100 (78 front clip), 37 12.5 17 mtr kevlars, 3 inch springs all around, shackle flip, tossed the factory blocks, 4.56`s, 82 non cad d44 with powerlock, 2002 9 1/4 with sure grip
300hp 360, sm435, np208

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s43/dak360/DSC01078.jpg

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s43/dak360/DSC01079.jpg

The deck isnt 100% done, I need to build sheetmetal flares for the wheel wells, and finish the rear tube work.
Ive just picked up a 98 dodge nv4500, now i need to track down a 4bt

So we had a sgi inspector come to the shop today to look at a Pontiac G5 that hit the ditch and had a broken rad, ac condenser, fan shroud etc. but thats not the point im getting to.
I asked him a bunch of questions about the Raised Vehicle Policy.
More importantly about this new national wide program.
From what he had to say it sounds like nothing is changing.
He said that it sounds like this policy is going to be adopted Canada wide.

yah dont count on it happening. or anything for that matter.

If public input changed anything that went against the current trend and the politician's personal beliefs, they would end it and outlaw it.
One thing to keep in mind is tires have a speed rating as well as load rating. If they are not exceeded, then the law (assuming a safe vehicle) doesn't have a leg to stand on. I'm surprised they haven't called for a special license and safety training for all lifted rig drivers just like the semi-drivers have to take.

If public input changed anything that went against the current trend and the politician's personal beliefs, they would end it and outlaw it.
One thing to keep in mind is tires have a speed rating as well as load rating. If they are not exceeded, then the law (assuming a safe vehicle) doesn't have a leg to stand on. I'm surprised they haven't called for a special license and safety training for all lifted rig drivers just like the semi-drivers have to take.

Its coming! We already require an "overweight trailer endorsement" if the weight of trailer and cargo exceed 10,000 lbs. Drag your rig and trailer across a scale sometime - I bet you are over 10K! Mine is.