Rubicon Owners Forum banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
254 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Some day I would like some bead locks for the Ruby, but most people seem to say they are illegal? Is it true?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
158 Posts
Majority of them arn't DOT approved. I think someone does make a dot approved bead lock which could be used on the roads, forget who makes it though.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
254 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Is DOT not an US thing? In Ontario it is the MTO I think??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
341 Posts
i doubt an OPP would even know the answer to that.

if you're heavily modded they might check you out but again i highly doubt it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,663 Posts
Not sure of Ontario laws but other provinces I have looked into have regulations that state multi piece rims are prohibited, ie split rims used on aircraft and some low speed farm equipment.

There is also a beadlock for offroad use only that operates on the split rim principle so it would not be legal on roads in the majority if not all provinces.

Of course depending on the officer and his interpretations of the regulations the beadlock rims could be considered multi-piece, considering the rim is seperate piece from locking ring you can't really blame them
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
254 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Thanks eveyone. I bet the multi piece rim is what is going to cause the problem DOT or not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
158 Posts
Another option is to send a message to the MTO or call them. I've contacted them in regards to gross weight and trailering along with weight stations and I always get a phone call back in a timely manner. I've been very impressed.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,456 Posts
My buddie got a "fix it ticket" when we were in Moab a few weeks ago
from the local Sheriff for WE bead locks...
and no mud flaps, no wheel fenders/covers/flares, and no mirrors, etc.... :laugh:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
254 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
funinmud said:
Another option is to send a message to the MTO or call them. I've contacted them in regards to gross weight and trailering along with weight stations and I always get a phone call back in a timely manner. I've been very impressed.
I wish I could say the same, I have had some "run ins" this year (nothing major) but dealing with them has been painful (3 days to get my licence back). Your suggestion is a good one though, might as well hear it from the horses mouth. I will post back what I get.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
tjpete said:
Thanks eveyone. I bet the multi piece rim is what is going to cause the problem DOT or not.
That's a new one for me. Never knew there was legislation in place re-split rims. However, in isolation, split-rims are not all illegal. My fathers Freightliner (commercial truck) runs split rims. But that may be a moot point due to the application.


As far the Po-Po and vehicle inspections thus far, the MOT guidelines in BC, was that you can't have any metal surface of the wheel (rim) protruding past the 'tread' surface of the tire. Therefore, no 'Mad Max' style of rims. :cheesy:

Now, as most of the rubber we're trying to wrap around ouR wheels have sidewall lugs, once mounted, the 'tread surface' is sticking out well past the face of the outter beadlock ring. So, on this count, they're on-side.

If caught in a roadside inspection, and if you had to bust down the wheel, the original wheel would have a MOT stamp on the inside somewhere. (Assuming you're using weld-on ring conversion kits). So, instead of having a tow, you could just slip the outter bead inside like normal, and continue on your way (assuming you have air & tools)

However, if you're using some wide 10" rims to really spread out your tires, this may no be the case with your particular set-up.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,663 Posts
Did a little searching, I think the reference to split rims was for cars and SUV's (Jeeps). Unless you change your registration to truck your very limited to what you can do.
Found this for Manitoba
http://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/statutes/ccsm/h060e.php

Ontario
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statut ... .htm#BK117

For example in Manitoba you are not allowed to modify the suspension to raise or lower the vehicle.
Changing suspension system:
59(2) No person shall alter a motor vehicle so as to raise or lower the suspension system of the motor vehicle higher or lower than the height of the motor vehicle at the time of its manufacture; and no person shall drive a motor vehicle on the highway if the suspension system thereof has been raised or lowered so that the height of the motor vehicle is higher or lower than its height at the time of its manufacture.

Exception to subsection (2)
59(3) Subsection (2) does not prohibit the raising or lowering of the suspension system
(a) of a motorcycle, mobility vehicle, truck or a moped; or
(b) the raising or lowering of the suspension system of a motor vehicle by reason only of
(i) the load being carried by the motor vehicle, or
(ii) the substitution of new or overload springs, or
(iii) the substitution of new shock absorbers, or
(iv) any other minor adjustment to the suspension system

TIRES:
Restrictions on protuberances on tires
43(3) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), no tire on a vehicle moved on a highway shall have on its periphery any block, stud, flange, cleat, or spike or any other protuberance of any material, other than rubber, that projects beyond the tread of the traction surface of the tire; but it is permissible to use tire chains of reasonable proportions upon a motor vehicle, where required for safety, or to use on dirt-surface roads only, tractors and implements of husbandry with tires having protuberances that will not injure the highway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
254 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
No lift in Manitoba, that sucks! I checked the Ontario linky and nothing really jumps out and says no beadlocks? Beadlocks are not split rims either, so the 50 may have a bit of a stretch there?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,663 Posts
More stuff, tons of reading tonight;
Improper Tires H.T.A. 70(1)(3) - $110.00 fine.

H.T.A. 70 (1) (3) No person shall operate or permit to be operated upon a highway a vehicle that is,

(a) fitted with a tire that does not conform with the standards and specifications prescribed in the regulations; or

(b) fitted with tires that are installed in a manner, in a place or in a combination that does not conform with the specifications prescribed in the regulations.

So, that being said we have to look at the regulations for the details. Regulation 625 "Tire Standards and Specifications".

Regulation 625, 4 (1) Tires shall be installed on a vehicle so as to avoid,
(a) a mixture of construction types consisting of radial ply tires on the front and bias ply or belted bias ply tires on the rear;
(b) a mixture consisting of 50 or 60 aspect ratio tires on the front with any aspect ratio of tires other than 50 or 60 aspect ratio, on the rear;
(c) a combination of construction types or sizes of tires on an axle, except where such types or sizes are equivalent by tire industry standards; or
(d) contact between tires in a dual set or a difference in overall diameter between tires in a dual set of more than thirteen millimetres or a difference in circumference of more than forty-one millimetres.
(2) Clause (1) (a) does not apply to tires fitted on a vehicle with dual rear tires.
(3) Clause (1) (c) does not apply to a temporary use spare tire, specified by a vehicle manufacturer as suitable for emergency use, if not more than one temporary use spare tire is installed on a vehicle.

No mention of beadlocks, so far so good.

John
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
254 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Coolio....hey another question, how many people are out there running bead locks on Canadian roads? Ever have run ins with Larry Law?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,663 Posts
Check out this regulation, multipiece rims have to be marked as such. Beadlocks could be considered multi piece so the rim has to be identified as such by the manufacturer.

In the "motor Vehicle Safety Act" home made beadlocks may not be street legal as they would not be correctly labeled.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/acts-regulations/GE ... sr120.html

After a few hundred pages I have had enough reading for one night.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
254 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
Topless Rubi said:
Check out this regulation, multipiece rims have to be marked as such. Beadlocks could be considered multi piece so the rim has to be identified as such by the manufacturer.

In the "motor Vehicle Safety Act" home made beadlocks may not be street legal as they would not be correctly labeled.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/acts-regulations/GE ... sr120.html

After a few hundred pages I have had enough reading for one night.
Another good find Topless. You are on your way to breaking an urban myth!!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,663 Posts
I also found out that modifying a tire by grooving will make the tires suitable for offroad use only; unless they have a stamp on the wall "Regroovable"

So from what I have been able to find out so far; if the rim is to be used on the street it has to be certified as such. Much like how all appliances have to be CSA approved for resale in Canada.

If a person decides to cut apart rims to make bead locks then they are no longer in the same condition or configuration as tested and as such any certification or compliance with regulations is no longer valid.

When selecting beadlocks the choice is limited too rims that have been tested and stamped with a serial/certification number as required by regulations. Rims sold as "offroad only" are unlikely to have this serial number, and like many things could void your insurance if it can even remotely be tied to the cause or influencing factor in the accident.

Many shops will tell the average person that Beadlocks are not legal in any shape or form; this is due to the fact that the average person does not even check tire pressure. Much less check pressure and torque on a monthly basis.
From what I see every day the average vehicle is running tires 10psi below recommended pressure or outright flat and they have no idea anything is wrong.

(An example of how easily insurance can be voided in an accident)
I have changed the registration on my Jeep from SUV to Truck.
1) Saving about $25.00 per month in insurance
2) eliminates many restrictions on modifying the suspension, still have to work within the width to height stability restriction.
3) have to remove rear seat; reducing weight saves fuel, little but every bit helps.
4) frees up space for tools and equipment when offroading.

One major point of importance is that I can never have a rear seat in my Jeep, the fact I have no mounting hardware and no seat belts does not matter.
If I move and need to transport the rear Seat I have to have someone else do it; If I move the seat in any shape or form then they assume I am trying to scam the insurance and will not be covered, even if I am stopped and someone runs into me I am toast.

Example two- If you are running larger tires and steel rims your rotating mass increases noticeably which will increase the distance required to stop. Without a suitable brake upgrade you could be held liably in an accident if stopping distance is taken into consideration during the investigation. Of course if you change or modify your brakes that can lead to even more problems if they are deamed unsuitable for your vehicle ie: not original equipment or factory upgrade.

Thankfully for the average wheeler none of the above are major concerns, like many regulations it is to stop the morons from killing off themselves and innocent bystanders. After seeing a 3/4 ton with a 12" body lift (using cedar logs standing on end, and grade 2 threaded rods) I have to say the regulations do not get under my skin as much as they used to.

To much reading and typing for a non work day-time to get out in the garage and figure out where to run the electrical system for Fog and signal lights that will not get ripped to shreads.

John
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
254 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
John, wow, thanks for all of the info. Cheers
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top