Driven5
PowerDork
1/25/24 2:58 p.m.
Something in the recent Tempesta P1 discussions grabbed my attention. The tires people are receiving apparently have "For Competition Use" molded into the sidewall. There is no "only" at the end of that, nor is there a subsequent "Not For Highway Use" either.
Now, I know that having a DOT approval does not mean a tire is automatically highway approved, as I believe that R-comps are clearly labeled with 'For Competition Use Only" and (/or?) "Not For Highway Use"... But is there an objective legal requirement defining the use of those statements or is it an entirely subjective CYA by the respective manufacturers? What technically determines if a tire actually meets whatever definition is out there of "For Highway Use" or not? Is there anything more than liability concerns actually stopping other manufacturers from removing those statements from their R-comp tires? And could be used to meet the letter of a rule/law for a tire that doesn't actually meet whatever "For Highway Use" standard, but vaguely enough to also attempt to loophole around it, or if as written it is necessarily just part of their 'marketing' markings?
I haven't been able to find anything detailing this aspect of tire legality and markings in FMVSS 139 or other searches yet, which is why I'm curious if somebody here might better know where to find the answer.
Possibly re-directing because I am not sure where you are going with this.
If you have an accident on a public street with tires labeled "for competition only" and your insurance company notices when they are inspecting the damage, it could be a reason they would use to deny a claim.
Also, if the accident is your fault, its your insurance company denying liability coverage , and the lawyer of the victim, that will be using it against you. Just my 2 cents.
Driven5
PowerDork
1/25/24 4:02 p.m.
In reply to jharry3 :
Which is part of why I'm curious to better understand the underlying verbiage and whatever determines it.
You are more likely to run afoul of your states tire laws than dot. I think the not for highway use markings are more an ass covering thing by tire makers than anything. Those tires would be below legal tread very quickly and dangerous in rain. For instance a hoosier A7 is molded with 4/32 which is minimum depth for a front tire in my state. Also my state specifically excludes tires marked not for highway use.
Wearing the DOT mark is independent of suitability for purpose statements, as far as NHTSA is concerned. FMVSS 139 only talks about minimum specs the tire has to meet to wear the mark...it says nothing about suitability for use.
The suitability statements are weasel words lawyers put in there to save themselves from liability if Little Johnny kills himself because he drove home from the autocross on A7's and got a puncture at a high rate of speed. Little Johnny's parents will have a hard time winning a lawsuit against the tire maker.
Note that this has nothing to do with 13.3.A.5 which states that tires eligible for Street be "Designed for Highway Use".
That's really the crux of the issue. W/o the word "Only", it becomes a judgment call for the SEB.
But then there's those cut stickers, though...
Here's what Hoosier says on their web site:
WARNING: NOT FOR HIGHWAY USE
NOT FOR HIGHWAY USE: All Hoosier Racing Tires including DOT labeled Hoosier Racing Tires are designed for racing purposes only on specified racing surfaces and are not to be operated on public roadways. DOT labeled Hoosier Racing Tires meet Department Of Transportation requirements for marking and performance only and are NOT INTENDED FOR HIGHWAY USE. It is unsafe to operate any Hoosier Racing Tire including DOT tires on public roads. The prohibited use of Hoosier Racing Tires on public roadways may result in loss of traction, unexpected loss of vehicle control, or sudden loss of tire pressure, resulting in a vehicle crash and SERIOUS PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH. Exception-"PRO STREET"
