if anyone can find it i do belive that [email protected] has a $50 reward for such code in ANY state in the US.
Beadlocks illegal in California?
Can anyone cite the specific section in the California Vehicle Code that prohibits the use of beadlock wheels on public roads? If anyone has received a citation for this (supposed) violation, do you recall the section number? I'm looking for facts, not conjecture.
1 - 20 of 70 Posts
It's my understanding that there isn't a specific code against them, but that they are not DOT approved. That makes it a Federal Highway type of deal, not specifically CA.
Dunno how accurate that is though, it's just my understanding.
Dunno how accurate that is though, it's just my understanding.
The only thing I would guess you might find is maybe a general statute that states all vehicle equipment must be DOT approved. I haven't ever seen a statute that specifcally prohibits beadlocks. But I'm not familiar with Cali traffic statutes.
There is no specific section in the CVC.Vortec_Cruiser said:Can anyone cite the specific section in the California Vehicle Code that prohibits the use of beadlock wheels on public roads? If anyone has received a citation for this (supposed) violation, do you recall the section number? I'm looking for facts, not conjecture.
Are H1 beadlock wheels legal?
I know that they have a DOT stamp, but they are also stamped "military use only?
I know that they have a DOT stamp, but they are also stamped "military use only?
I did a lot of research on it before I posted the "bounty" on it... and it's stood, unclaimed, for at least three years so far.
There is a Federal standard that basically says that all roadgoing wheels have to be DOT stamped, but nothing preventing a manufacturer from DOT stamping a beadlock wheel. In fact, if you check out Champion Wheel's comments (on their site) you'll see that beadlocks are actually road legal, but most beadlock wheel manufacturers choose not to stamp their product DOT, thereby hiding from lawsuits behind a smokescreen of vague (and often misleading) language.
If you care to research the FMVSS on the subject, there's nothing about beadlocks that is in violation of DOT standards... but there is a requirement that all road wheels be DOT stamped, and a manufacturer stamping something DOT, makes them liable for it.
If you go so far as to research the FMVSS, you'll find that the very concept of "DOT approved" is misleading, as DOT does not approve anything. DOT writes standards, and specifies how to perform testing, but does not do testing, nor do they provide approval.
There is a Federal standard that basically says that all roadgoing wheels have to be DOT stamped, but nothing preventing a manufacturer from DOT stamping a beadlock wheel. In fact, if you check out Champion Wheel's comments (on their site) you'll see that beadlocks are actually road legal, but most beadlock wheel manufacturers choose not to stamp their product DOT, thereby hiding from lawsuits behind a smokescreen of vague (and often misleading) language.
If you care to research the FMVSS on the subject, there's nothing about beadlocks that is in violation of DOT standards... but there is a requirement that all road wheels be DOT stamped, and a manufacturer stamping something DOT, makes them liable for it.
If you go so far as to research the FMVSS, you'll find that the very concept of "DOT approved" is misleading, as DOT does not approve anything. DOT writes standards, and specifies how to perform testing, but does not do testing, nor do they provide approval.
I do believe when you build a new product that needs to be approved by the DOT. Wheather its a trailer, vehicle, or beadlock wheels. The only thing that I have seen them do is they send an inspector out and they look the product over to make sure that it can be used on the road with out basically fallen apart. Then they give you a paper that they sign and they are on there way.
I think the only reason someone hasn't done this is ???????????????? liability
I think the only reason someone hasn't done this is ???????????????? liability
so any weld on beadlock (steel or Al) is completely legal because the original wheel is already DOT stamped, right? Is there law that would prevent you from modifying a DOT standard wheel, and if so do they define how far you can take it, like what about drilling for another valve stem?[email protected] said:I did a lot of research on it before I posted the "bounty" on it... and it's stood, unclaimed, for at least three years so far.
There is a Federal standard that basically says that all roadgoing wheels have to be DOT stamped, but nothing preventing a manufacturer from DOT stamping a beadlock wheel. In fact, if you check out Champion Wheel's comments (on their site) you'll see that beadlocks are actually road legal, but most beadlock wheel manufacturers choose not to stamp their product DOT, thereby hiding from lawsuits behind a smokescreen of vague (and often misleading) language.
If you care to research the FMVSS on the subject, there's nothing about beadlocks that is in violation of DOT standards... but there is a requirement that all road wheels be DOT stamped, and a manufacturer stamping something DOT, makes them liable for it.
If you go so far as to research the FMVSS, you'll find that the very concept of "DOT approved" is misleading, as DOT does not approve anything. DOT writes standards, and specifies how to perform testing, but does not do testing, nor do they provide approval.
There are no inspectors that "come out and look it over". It's entirely on the manufacturer--if they want to accept the liability for it, they can stamp it; if they don't, they don't have to. There's no requirement that they stamp it in order to sell it, that's how so many beadlock manufacturers can sell so many wheels with "not for highway use" on them, and no DOT stamp. They're simply hiding from the liability.
Rim shells are stamped DOT prior to having a center installed. I have a couple here at the shop, 15x10, with full DOT markings, from the rimshell rolling house, with no center, no valve hole, no nothing... just the rim itself.
With that information in mind, knowing that it has to have other parts welded on in order to be useable as a wheel, knowing that it has to have a hole (or maybe two, if you're using the inflatable internal lock systems) drilled in it anyway, it's pretty well stretching things to say that it voids the DOT stamp to weld to it, to drill holes on it, or similar.
The only argument I've seen that holds any water is, if you cut it, that (arguably) could be construed as a substantial change to the wheel. It is, however, considered acceptable to cut two wheels apart to make one wider wheel out of the two larger pieces of each. Wheel shops do it all the time, without impacting the DOT stamp or legality.
Further, as I've been told by the Colorado State Patrol, if the wheel has a DOT stamp in it along with the other information as described by the DOT in their regulations, the State Patrol considers it to be road legal. All they need to see is that stamp. Unfortunately for convenience sake, that stamp is on the air-pressure side of the wheel, to keep it from looking ugly on the cosmetic surfaces, but it's usually there.
Rim shells are stamped DOT prior to having a center installed. I have a couple here at the shop, 15x10, with full DOT markings, from the rimshell rolling house, with no center, no valve hole, no nothing... just the rim itself.
With that information in mind, knowing that it has to have other parts welded on in order to be useable as a wheel, knowing that it has to have a hole (or maybe two, if you're using the inflatable internal lock systems) drilled in it anyway, it's pretty well stretching things to say that it voids the DOT stamp to weld to it, to drill holes on it, or similar.
The only argument I've seen that holds any water is, if you cut it, that (arguably) could be construed as a substantial change to the wheel. It is, however, considered acceptable to cut two wheels apart to make one wider wheel out of the two larger pieces of each. Wheel shops do it all the time, without impacting the DOT stamp or legality.
Further, as I've been told by the Colorado State Patrol, if the wheel has a DOT stamp in it along with the other information as described by the DOT in their regulations, the State Patrol considers it to be road legal. All they need to see is that stamp. Unfortunately for convenience sake, that stamp is on the air-pressure side of the wheel, to keep it from looking ugly on the cosmetic surfaces, but it's usually there.
from my understanding dot approved is like saying "these safety glasses are osha/ansi approved". like said there is a set of guidelines to be meet and many don't want the liability so they don't put the dot and use the off highway only on there.
Man the whole beadlock thing is getting old :shaking:
The Government provides DOT specs for just about everything that goes over the road, from helmets, to tires, wheels, etc, etc.
They only provide the specs manufacturers have to meet.
They do not test items manufactured (like helmets),
the manufacturers are on their honor that the product they make, and stamp DOT really does meet DOT standards.
The company making the beadlocks doesn't want to take responsibilty for you not keeping the bolts tight, so he points out the fact that they do not meet DOT standards as a vehicle wheel, and labels the "offroad use only".
The only time I heard of police sucessfully enforcing DOT standards was back in the 60's, when hotrodders were running non-DOT slicks on the road.
Most municipalities had to write tread depth laws, to be able to prosecute the offenders.
More recently cops have been writing tickets to Harley guys using non-DOT half helmets.
Last I heard (last year?) the judge threw out every ticket that was challenged, saying the PO's don't have the right to enforce DOT law.
I'm sure the case file info would be easy to google.
If it says cops can't enforce the DOT, then the pointless beadlock debate should fall under the same ruling.
The Government provides DOT specs for just about everything that goes over the road, from helmets, to tires, wheels, etc, etc.
They only provide the specs manufacturers have to meet.
They do not test items manufactured (like helmets),
the manufacturers are on their honor that the product they make, and stamp DOT really does meet DOT standards.
The company making the beadlocks doesn't want to take responsibilty for you not keeping the bolts tight, so he points out the fact that they do not meet DOT standards as a vehicle wheel, and labels the "offroad use only".
The only time I heard of police sucessfully enforcing DOT standards was back in the 60's, when hotrodders were running non-DOT slicks on the road.
Most municipalities had to write tread depth laws, to be able to prosecute the offenders.
More recently cops have been writing tickets to Harley guys using non-DOT half helmets.
Last I heard (last year?) the judge threw out every ticket that was challenged, saying the PO's don't have the right to enforce DOT law.
I'm sure the case file info would be easy to google.
If it says cops can't enforce the DOT, then the pointless beadlock debate should fall under the same ruling.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Highway Safety Desk Book:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/enforce/deskbk.html#PMVI
Interesting read, talks all about vehicle law enforcement, touches on DOT helmet standards, but not one word on Beadlocks (that I could find).
" This book is intended for police leaders. After all, that's what you are—whether you call yourselves commanders, administrators, executives, or supervisors, you are, first and foremost, leaders. It is intended as a quick and practical compendium of information to assist you in asserting your leadership in one of policing's most important functions, ...................................................."
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/enforce/deskbk.html#PMVI
Interesting read, talks all about vehicle law enforcement, touches on DOT helmet standards, but not one word on Beadlocks (that I could find).
" This book is intended for police leaders. After all, that's what you are—whether you call yourselves commanders, administrators, executives, or supervisors, you are, first and foremost, leaders. It is intended as a quick and practical compendium of information to assist you in asserting your leadership in one of policing's most important functions, ...................................................."
Here in AZ people have been pulled over on the Beeline Hwy (87) for what police believed to be beadlocks.....turned out they were the fake street locks, but the cop said they were issuing tickets for real ones.
Seems like they don't have a legal leg to stand on, but you'd have to fight it in court.
Sean
Seems like they don't have a legal leg to stand on, but you'd have to fight it in court.
Sean
Colorado State Patrol said that if I were ever issued a ticket for such a thing, it would be tossed immediately upon seeing the DOT stamp in the wheel. Either take it to the DA, or waste a bunch of time and show it to a judge. Taking it apart on the side of the road should suffice too, but I'm not real interested in taking one of my wheels apart roadside to get out of a ticket--I'd rather take it to the DA or a judge anyway.
However, running wheels with no DOT stamp on them, or worse, for example, Walker Evans' locks on the street, with the "not for highway use" cast right into the rim lip, would be very bad for your chances of getting such a ticket tossed.
I'm curious as to what law the AZ cops would've been writing tickets for violating.
Regarding the one comment above about local cops not having the standing to enforce federal law, yeah, sorta, but most states have laws incorporating entire sections of federal law, into local law. That gives them the right to enforce federal law, as they've adopted it, verbatim, into state or local law.
However, running wheels with no DOT stamp on them, or worse, for example, Walker Evans' locks on the street, with the "not for highway use" cast right into the rim lip, would be very bad for your chances of getting such a ticket tossed.
I'm curious as to what law the AZ cops would've been writing tickets for violating.
Regarding the one comment above about local cops not having the standing to enforce federal law, yeah, sorta, but most states have laws incorporating entire sections of federal law, into local law. That gives them the right to enforce federal law, as they've adopted it, verbatim, into state or local law.
hell ya you can put a tire on it!!!! its not gonna go on any thing, but hell ya, ya can!!!
:flipoff2:
you just gotta have the right tire machine!
:flipoff2:
you just gotta have the right tire machine!
Just for interest I checked wheels in the shop today, OK I know they are not 4x4 wheels but here is what I found[email protected] said:However, running wheels with no DOT stamp on them,
-17" BBS wheels - came stock from Subaru on the STi - no DOT markings (inside or out)
- 17" BBS knockoffs, aftermarket race wheels for the STi, source unkown - no DOT markings.
-17" OZ Superleggra wheels - aftermarket wheels bought thru Tire Rack - no DOT markings (tires mounted so could be stamped inside)
-16" and 17" Kosei K-1's - aftermarket wheels bought thru Tire Rack - no DOT markings - no tires mounted on the 16's, tires mounted on the 17's so maybe stamped inside the rim.
17" S-lite wheels, stock on 2003 Mini Cooper S - no DOT markings - tires mounted though
16" wheels - stock on 2005 Cooper S - no DOT markings - tires mounted
16" SSR's (2 sets)- racing wheels from Tire Rack - no DOT markings.
So out of 8 sets of wheels, NONE have any sign of DOT markings on them. OK, 4 sets have tires mounted at the moment.
Should I be in a panic because I am in imminent danger of getting pulled over by the highway patrol? :flipoff2:
And the light weight racing wheels are not marked "offroad or racing use"
Want to really laugh. - the Hoosier and Kumho tires we use for autocross are stamped with the "DOT" on the sidewall, right next the bold "not recommended for highway use". The tires have to be DOT approved to meet SCCA requirements but they are virtually slicks (two grooves only) so would not make suitable road tires. plus a set of tires only lasts for 40 miles or so.
So in theory I suppose I could be stopped and cited for running wheels that do not have "DOT" on them, and it would be hard to prove that they are legal for the road. How can a manufacturer (both Mini and Subaru, in my case) sell a car that does not comply with the DOT wheels laws?
Just more fuel for the beadlocks debate.
this is lifted from section 175.80 of the pa inspection procedure / vehicle code. NOTHING stated about "DOT" markings, beadlocks sizes etc....
(e) Beneath the vehicle inspection. A beneath the vehicle inspection shall be performed as follows:
(1) Inspect the tires and wheels and reject if one or more of the following apply:
(i) A tire has two adjacent treads with less than 2/32-inch tread remaining at any point—less than 4/32-inch tread on the front tires of the vehicles having a gross weight in excess of 10,000 pounds.
(ii) A tire is worn so that the tread wear indicators contact the road in any two adjacent grooves.
(iii) A part of ply or cord is exposed.
(iv) A tire has been repaired with a blow-out patch or boot.
(v) There is a bump, bulge or separation.
(vi) A tire is marked “not for highway use,” “for racing purposes only” or “unsafe for highway use,” or has a similar designation.
(vii) There are other conditions or markings reasonably believed to render the tire unsafe for highway use.
(viii) A tire has been regrooved or recut below the original tread design depth except special taxicab tires which are identified as having extra undertread rubber.
(ix) A tire’s tread extends beyond the outer edge of the wheel housing inclusive of fender flares.
(x) The tires used on the same axle are not the same size or type of construction—bias, belted, radial or snow.
(xi) The wheel nuts or bolts are missing, loose or have improper thread engagement.
(xii) The stud or bolt holes are worn out of round.
(xiii) Part of the wheel is bent, cracked, welded or damaged so as to affect safe operation of vehicle.
(xiv) The rear wheel does not track front wheel in straight ahead position as originally designed.
(xv) The wheel base on one side differs from the wheel base on the other side by more than 1 inch, unless the vehicle’s design specifications indicate different left and right wheel base dimensions.
(xvi) Studded tires are in use after April 15 and before November 1.
(xvii) Retreads are on the front axle of a taxi.
(xviii) The diameter of duals is not within 3/8-inch of each other.
(xix) An axle has missing tires or rims.
(xx) A tire makes contact with the body or chassis.
(xxi) Spacers over 1/4 inch in thickness are used to increase wheel track.
http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/067/chapter175/s175.80.html
(e) Beneath the vehicle inspection. A beneath the vehicle inspection shall be performed as follows:
(1) Inspect the tires and wheels and reject if one or more of the following apply:
(i) A tire has two adjacent treads with less than 2/32-inch tread remaining at any point—less than 4/32-inch tread on the front tires of the vehicles having a gross weight in excess of 10,000 pounds.
(ii) A tire is worn so that the tread wear indicators contact the road in any two adjacent grooves.
(iii) A part of ply or cord is exposed.
(iv) A tire has been repaired with a blow-out patch or boot.
(v) There is a bump, bulge or separation.
(vi) A tire is marked “not for highway use,” “for racing purposes only” or “unsafe for highway use,” or has a similar designation.
(vii) There are other conditions or markings reasonably believed to render the tire unsafe for highway use.
(viii) A tire has been regrooved or recut below the original tread design depth except special taxicab tires which are identified as having extra undertread rubber.
(ix) A tire’s tread extends beyond the outer edge of the wheel housing inclusive of fender flares.
(x) The tires used on the same axle are not the same size or type of construction—bias, belted, radial or snow.
(xi) The wheel nuts or bolts are missing, loose or have improper thread engagement.
(xii) The stud or bolt holes are worn out of round.
(xiii) Part of the wheel is bent, cracked, welded or damaged so as to affect safe operation of vehicle.
(xiv) The rear wheel does not track front wheel in straight ahead position as originally designed.
(xv) The wheel base on one side differs from the wheel base on the other side by more than 1 inch, unless the vehicle’s design specifications indicate different left and right wheel base dimensions.
(xvi) Studded tires are in use after April 15 and before November 1.
(xvii) Retreads are on the front axle of a taxi.
(xviii) The diameter of duals is not within 3/8-inch of each other.
(xix) An axle has missing tires or rims.
(xx) A tire makes contact with the body or chassis.
(xxi) Spacers over 1/4 inch in thickness are used to increase wheel track.
http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/067/chapter175/s175.80.html
I think the bottom line of this thread is.......Use beadlocks on the road if you want. They are safer, tougher and more likely to stay together in a crash so you would likely be better off to use them. BUT! The cops on the roads these days like to think that they have control of everything (rightly so, considering they have to pull drunk people over at 3 in the morning, when it is a persons right to carry a gun on the passanger seat of their car, I would want the ellution of control too.). So they will write you a ticket if they think that the beadlocks are not safe. Not if they are not legal, not if they are not DOT approved, not if you have 15 mounted side by side sticking 10 feet out either side of the rig. They are going to write the ticket if THEY think you are being "unsafe".
Then you will have to prove to the judge that they/you are not unsafe. Depending on what that particular judge think is whether or not you are going to get a ticket. If he is a commy bastard you will likely come away with a ticket and the cops will have a hay-day. Or he might be conservitive and you might be fine. Then thew cops will know they are likely wasting thier time to write future tickets. Sure, you can fight it and go up the chain and eventually you will over turn the rulling and win the battle because nobody has said "you can't use beadlocks". Then every state will pass a law stately that beadlocks are not for highway use unless on a military or government vehicles. Then you will really be shiat out of luck.
The judicial system wins the war everytime. Period. You might win a battle but they will win the war.
Moral of the story? Use them at your own risk just like the manufactures of the rims intended by not stamping them in the first place. Because they a scared of some yuppy millionair driving him H2 down the highway at a 120mph wrecking and stating that he thought that he was invincable because he had beadlocks on his grocery- getter. Rightly so because the scum-sucking bottom feeders (lawyers) have turned the judicial system into a revenue generator because of tort litigation. That and the people that would have been weeded out by natural selection have become these worthless leaches on society instead of dying off because of thier own stupidity.
Fawk em all!
[getting off the soap box]
Then you will have to prove to the judge that they/you are not unsafe. Depending on what that particular judge think is whether or not you are going to get a ticket. If he is a commy bastard you will likely come away with a ticket and the cops will have a hay-day. Or he might be conservitive and you might be fine. Then thew cops will know they are likely wasting thier time to write future tickets. Sure, you can fight it and go up the chain and eventually you will over turn the rulling and win the battle because nobody has said "you can't use beadlocks". Then every state will pass a law stately that beadlocks are not for highway use unless on a military or government vehicles. Then you will really be shiat out of luck.
The judicial system wins the war everytime. Period. You might win a battle but they will win the war.
Moral of the story? Use them at your own risk just like the manufactures of the rims intended by not stamping them in the first place. Because they a scared of some yuppy millionair driving him H2 down the highway at a 120mph wrecking and stating that he thought that he was invincable because he had beadlocks on his grocery- getter. Rightly so because the scum-sucking bottom feeders (lawyers) have turned the judicial system into a revenue generator because of tort litigation. That and the people that would have been weeded out by natural selection have become these worthless leaches on society instead of dying off because of thier own stupidity.
Fawk em all!
[getting off the soap box]
1 - 20 of 70 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Pirate 4x4
A forum community dedicated to custom off-road vehicle owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about trail reports, builds, performance, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, fabrication, drivetrain, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top Contributors this Month
View All
Wontun Splodies
68 Replies
total newb
61 Replies
Beat95YJ
50 Replies
Recommended Communities
