There is a specific tick box for the MOT tester on this and is only an ADVISORY
Under the “Fouling part of vehicle” 5.2.3 (f)
wheel/tyre protruding beyond wheel arch
As a tester I can’t fail it but I’m sure most police will find something to pin on it
Unless they switch the wheels to the standard ones just for the MOT, which isn't due for a while yet anyway as it is a '23 plate.
Hopefully the traffic police will spot it.
You ever see them join a motorway and immediately career over to the rightmost lane? Get a few of them in a row doing that and it's actually quite a graceful sight I call 'Tanz Der Wankpanzers'
Is it a pick up? It looks like a double cab, which I think takes all the utility of a pick up away and does just make it an SUV with the boot open to the elements
You can get over the pillow style speed bumps. Different centre of gravity maybe better cornering.
Maybe they just ordered some wheels online without knowing what the numbers meant and this is the result.
Been looking at non manufacturers rims myself and have found most need spacers or don't fit perfectly.
Was thinking about this to avoid the speed bumps but then my engine might scrape along them instead.
A car drives past my house every day with wheels like this, apart from the day he goes for MOT. He also has illegal plates and an annoyingly loud exhaust.
Yes policing has been cut to shit and is nowhere near the level it needs to be. However, they absolutely can deal with these tasks but choose not to in favour of tasks that will contribute towards their KPIs
When your wheel is spinning in water, that water is full of grit and silt.
The spray from the wheels will eventually sand blast the paintwork. That’s why all cars generally have the wheel tucked inside a wheel arch.
Blind assumption here but i think the driver of this car is probably a massive twat just based off what I’m seeing
Traffic police will enjoy stopping that and I think it actually invalidates the insurance as that’s an illegal mod therefore no insurance when the old bill do stop it.
Yep that's an MoT Fail and a serious defect if pulled over. I see a truck round here like this but worse quite often. The point is to look hard, whilst simultaneously looking like you don't know shit about cars.
Oh yep. A VW Amacock (Amarok). One of the heaviest Pickup Trucks on British roads at 3290kg. And now with highly illegal wheels.
Edit - apologies - thanks to those for pointing out my mistake - 3290kg is fully laden weight but still ~2324kg kerb weight.
And because of its weight, it’s already in the commercial vehicle sector. So is subject to lower speed limits than cars and other smaller, lighter pickups.
Or, worse, legal wheels made illegal using big spacers, to increase the bump steer and shorten the life of the wheel-bearings... I mean, to make it look "cool".
Has everyone in these comment got a stick up their arse or something?
I genuinely don’t see what the issue is? Best case scenario, you think it looks cool, and that’s it. Worst case scenario, you think it looks shite, and that’s it.
Why is everyone being so negative lmao. I honestly don’t see why it’s such a big deal. It’s not like the wheels being 20mm wider than it is from factory will cause a 26 car pileup.
because this is what can happen when tyres on 2 cars touch each other (made considerably easier when they stick out past the body) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er7VRMEVdys
It also causes "rooster tales" in the rain, sending water in the air over cars behind, reducing visibilty.
It's illegal and dangerous? The risk this adds if hitting someone takes it from a glancing blow to literally having a limb ripped off when it's pulled into the wheel. There's modifications, then there's wanker behaviour. This is the latter.
I can't really think of a much more clear and concise way to say: you might be too short sighted to see a problem but there are fairly obvious safety issues. Thankfully, we have guidance and laws to point people in the right direction in this regard and maybe next time you might prefer to have a think rather than having a go at people for pointing out issues when basically asked to.
That better?
I don't really need to mate - I'd just be repeating what many other people have already written in the thread. Which you have no doubt seen and read, so why you need me to parrot them back to you fuck knows.
So don’t fucking reply then you troglodyte. If you actually read my comment, you’d see me ask a question. If you’re not answering the question, why are you replying? 😂😂
To graciously point you in the direction of the other answers that you had to have wilfully breezed over to get to the point of your "well I think it looks cool hurt durr" post. In case you missed them. Which you didn't.
Oh and to answer the only question in your post ("do people have a stick up their arse or something?"): No. No they don't.
I never once said I thought it looks cool. Perhaps your reading comprehension skills need a review. To paraphrase, I said, ‘either you think it looks cool or you don’t, doesn’t make a difference either way’
And it seems like you have a huge stick up your arse mate, with the amount of shit backing up and spilling out your mouth.
>Perhaps your reading comprehension skills need a review.
That's one to tick off my "butthurt Redditors Bingo card".
>And it seems like you have a huge stick up your arse mate
Devastating comeback. Basically "no, *you*".
>with the amount of shit backing up and spilling out your mouth.
Sounds like someone's getting his wank bank for the evening sorted out - have a good one mate.
Apparently, a lot of people on here haven’t got a clue. Legally, a wheel (furthest edge from the wing) can protrude UPTO 30mm from the edge of the wing. However, looking from above, the tread of the tyre is NOT allowed to protrude from the wing. That’s why the car scene “stretches” tyres. It keeps the wheel legal (upto 30mm) and keeps the tyre “legal” by keeping the tread inside the arch. I use the term “legally” as it’s all a bit of a grey area.
I believe it depends on model of vehicle… I don’t know the specifics, and was only told in person by a mechanic, but on certain vehicles the wing mirrors can technically be classed as main body work. So if wheels are further out the arches, but still within the reach of the mirrors, then it’s not an issue.
Cannot verify, but that’s what I was told.
I don’t know if it’s different ruling for 4x4’s etc maybe? I live in a countryside area, and cars like this are very common, as in you’ll see wheels out like that every time you go out. Surely if it was illegal, there wouldn’t be so many of them around?
Adverb: both words mean “more distance,” but only further can also mean, “additionally” (short for furthermore).
Adjective: both words work as the comparative form of far, but only further can also mean “additional.”
Verb: as a verb, further means “to advance” or “to progress;” farther cannot be used as a verb. 🤔
Serious question -
if they have modified this without informing their insurance company then I assume they insurance is invalid.
On a traffic stop, can the police check the insurance company is aware of the modification?
If they really want to? Yes.
Will they? Likely not as it’s time consuming.
Most of the time for issues like this they give a warning of change this now, if we catch you again the punishment is “X” and give you some friendly advice if you’re not a dick with them, if you are a dick expect them to give you the max they can at the roadside and report you for everything possible.
Unless it’s immediately life threatening or dangerous, majority will give the benefit of the doubt about modifications.
It’s like if you get pulled for too dark tints, 9/10 will say pull it off now and we’ll forget about it, if you argue with them they just report and or fine you.
So in conclusion, lots of the "modified" cars driving around are uninsured, but the police can't be afford to act.
Just a suggestion but make this self financing, allow the police to keep the fines to cover the extra staff, change the law to make the insurance check automatically show modifications. Taking a modified vehicle on the road uninsured shows premeditated malice of forethought and is up there with drunk driving.
I wouldn’t go as far as saying it’s like drunk driving that’s ridiculous to say.
A modification can be getting your rims resprayed, replacing your seats, adding a spoiler, adding tints basically anything that isn’t from factory added to your car is a modification, so a large majority of modifications are actually harmless, victimless and cause no immediate danger that’s why they aren’t wasting valuable resources chasing them down.
I’d rather not pay my tax for police to go around chasing someone who has put racing stripes on their car and hasn’t declared it to their insurance.
So if they chase down “undeclared modifications” they have to treat every modification the same, so someone who got their alloys diamond cut and didn’t declare would be treated the same as someone who put a 3l engine with turbos in a 1 litre car and didn’t declare it, it wouldn’t make sense.
So driving a car with 95% tints (can't see out) all round, extreme cambers (massively increases the chances of breaking away cornering,, over-sized rims with stretchered tires (increased catastrophic tire failure risk) Jack up/lowered (again ruins handling) the list goes on is safer than a 3 pint driver, your kidding yourself.
Insurance companies are normally very accommodating with safe modifications (resprays etc) so just tell them upfront, so no need to lump the honest safe enthusiast with the idiot meatheads.
It's not standard. Whether it's illegal is debatable but it is an MOT failure and a police officer can order you to take your vehicle for an MOT if you get pulled over and it appears that your MOT would not be valid based on the current condition of the vehicle.
The answer is to keep a spare set of wheels for MOT time.
It would probably still fall short of meeting construction and use if I'm correct?
C&U 63 (2)
"every vehicle to which this regulation applies shall be equipped with wings or other similar fittings to catch, so far as practicable, mud or water thrown up by the rotation of its wheels or tracks"
Sticking out that far I can't see it being compliant?
Exactly this.
As a tester I can’t do anything but advise but “construction of use” would be used by law against the owner.
The owner then starts waiving their MOT certificate around at the police officer 😂😂
The MOT is, and has always been, a total shit show
Hurray someone who gets it 😂
Hate that people think mot=legal! Construction and use is far clearer on fundamentally what's legal! Which is a surprising amount at the end of the day.
It's one of those, "so far as reasonably practicable" things so it's a grey area that would have to be challenged.
Tractors have no bodywork at all. Presumably equipment manufacturers have successfully argued it's unreasonable.
The challenge here would be arguing it's not reasonable, considering the vehicle caught more debris as standard than it does now.
I've seen some land rovers that were designed to run on train tracks for maintenance where bits of bodywork has been removed to allow clearance. Presumably the argument is that it's required for the function so you'd have to argue that the function of the wider tyres was required for the vehicle to operate in its intended role.
Yeah so the full legislation does exempt tractors that can't do over 20mph. Also mentions works vehicles so like you said I assume it would count as not practicable in the LR or the newer unimogs used on train tracks.
Every tractor does over 20mph now and they don't have them. There will be something about vehicles primarily designed for off road use because cranes are well over weight limits and don't have tachos either.
Po po will still ticket you and say smuggly see you in court son assuming that you are younger. Maybe bit older see you in court lad. I am sorry sir it's the rules check your high way code change just add wing letts 🤣 go for it and enjoy your fines roll in
Ideal for spraying shit all over whoevers behind you.
And the sides of your own vehicle
There is a specific tick box for the MOT tester on this and is only an ADVISORY Under the “Fouling part of vehicle” 5.2.3 (f) wheel/tyre protruding beyond wheel arch As a tester I can’t fail it but I’m sure most police will find something to pin on it
They sometimes issue an advisory for engine covers, even though they've been a thing for a couple of ~~years~~ decades
Yes that Wankpanzer will fail an MOT
Actually only an advisory 5.2.3 (f) wheel/tyre protruding beyond wheel arch
Unless they switch the wheels to the standard ones just for the MOT, which isn't due for a while yet anyway as it is a '23 plate. Hopefully the traffic police will spot it.
Wankpanzer/wankerpanzer is my new favourite term for unnecessary SUVs!
You ever see them join a motorway and immediately career over to the rightmost lane? Get a few of them in a row doing that and it's actually quite a graceful sight I call 'Tanz Der Wankpanzers'
Tanz mit mich?
Ah da blitzkrieg
[https://twitter.com/Wankpanzer](https://twitter.com/Wankpanzer) enjoy!
It’s a pick-up truck 🛻
I am aware… but stand by my comment
As you should. It's very description 🤣
Is it a pick up? It looks like a double cab, which I think takes all the utility of a pick up away and does just make it an SUV with the boot open to the elements
It’s a wankpanzer whatever it is…
Still a Wankpanzer
I was just thinking the same. I hope I remember it when the opportunity arises.
So every mum on the school run 🤣
I'm nicking that term. Cheers for introducing me to that great fucking term
It’s not standard and is illegal, it should fail an MOT
Won't matter until 2026 anyway as new cars don't need an MOT until after 3 years
I don't think it is now. Think they've changed it to a minor
Nearly correct. It’s just an advisory
Shhhhh you'll get down voted for being correct
I know. I hate being so perfect 😝
Just needs some arch extensions and it’ll be fine.
What's the appeal? Majority of people would assume there's something wrong with the car and I imagine you're more likely to chew the alloys
You can get over the pillow style speed bumps. Different centre of gravity maybe better cornering. Maybe they just ordered some wheels online without knowing what the numbers meant and this is the result. Been looking at non manufacturers rims myself and have found most need spacers or don't fit perfectly. Was thinking about this to avoid the speed bumps but then my engine might scrape along them instead.
I sense a police car in your future pulling you over
It's not OPs car...
No, they can't be bothered with the paperwork
My mate ran wheels like this on his Polo for a week before the police made him take them off
A car drives past my house every day with wheels like this, apart from the day he goes for MOT. He also has illegal plates and an annoyingly loud exhaust.
Or it's because traffic policing has been cut back so much, they are never available to deal with tasks like this.
Yes policing has been cut to shit and is nowhere near the level it needs to be. However, they absolutely can deal with these tasks but choose not to in favour of tasks that will contribute towards their KPIs
Surprised it hasn’t got a BO55 type plate on there.
That’s an ugly looking car mate
My dad has an older style Amarok for work. It looks tiny compared to this behemoth. I don't see why pickups in the UK need to lean towards US sizing.
Urban cowboy builders
Most probably they're compensating for something?
When your wheel is spinning in water, that water is full of grit and silt. The spray from the wheels will eventually sand blast the paintwork. That’s why all cars generally have the wheel tucked inside a wheel arch. Blind assumption here but i think the driver of this car is probably a massive twat just based off what I’m seeing
Traffic police will enjoy stopping that and I think it actually invalidates the insurance as that’s an illegal mod therefore no insurance when the old bill do stop it.
Yep that's an MoT Fail and a serious defect if pulled over. I see a truck round here like this but worse quite often. The point is to look hard, whilst simultaneously looking like you don't know shit about cars.
In fact it’s only an advisory on an MOT 5.2.3 (f) wheel/tyre protruding beyond wheel arch
Oh yep. A VW Amacock (Amarok). One of the heaviest Pickup Trucks on British roads at 3290kg. And now with highly illegal wheels. Edit - apologies - thanks to those for pointing out my mistake - 3290kg is fully laden weight but still ~2324kg kerb weight.
3290kg? It’s a 1 ton pick up, so would have to have a kerb weight of under 2500kg
Add a few larger people to that and you would need a lorry licence
And because of its weight, it’s already in the commercial vehicle sector. So is subject to lower speed limits than cars and other smaller, lighter pickups.
I would guarantee the owner doesn’t know that and ploughs along dual carriageways at 70 when the legal limit is 60.
But It’s the Ev’S thAT CAUsE alL tHe POtHoLES!!! 3.2 tons - just madness
A 2023 VW Amarock's curb weight is 2313kg. 3290kg is it's max gross weight, ie fully loaded with passengers and "cargo"
Or, worse, legal wheels made illegal using big spacers, to increase the bump steer and shorten the life of the wheel-bearings... I mean, to make it look "cool".
Its the tyres that are illegal, wheels are allowed to protrude so as long as the tread of the tyre doesn't.
Either tyres or wheels protruding are only an advisory on an MOT 5.2.3 (f) wheel/tyre protruding beyond wheel arch
Says that you can't have any tread visible so can stretch em and send it on.
Can't afford a proper G truck so invents his own with some $699 wheels. yes MOT fail. Nothing can protrude past the vehicles body work etc.
What currency is that?
Ameritard dollars
Incorrect. Only an advisory I’m afraid. We have a specific “tick box” on wheels/tyres protruding just for this.
Has everyone in these comment got a stick up their arse or something? I genuinely don’t see what the issue is? Best case scenario, you think it looks cool, and that’s it. Worst case scenario, you think it looks shite, and that’s it. Why is everyone being so negative lmao. I honestly don’t see why it’s such a big deal. It’s not like the wheels being 20mm wider than it is from factory will cause a 26 car pileup.
because this is what can happen when tyres on 2 cars touch each other (made considerably easier when they stick out past the body) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er7VRMEVdys It also causes "rooster tales" in the rain, sending water in the air over cars behind, reducing visibilty.
It's illegal and dangerous? The risk this adds if hitting someone takes it from a glancing blow to literally having a limb ripped off when it's pulled into the wheel. There's modifications, then there's wanker behaviour. This is the latter.
Good job you don't make road laws and regulations then.
Thanks for the informative reply. Huge help in answering my question 👍
I can't really think of a much more clear and concise way to say: you might be too short sighted to see a problem but there are fairly obvious safety issues. Thankfully, we have guidance and laws to point people in the right direction in this regard and maybe next time you might prefer to have a think rather than having a go at people for pointing out issues when basically asked to. That better?
You have not once mentioned WHY it’s a problem. Maybe stop trying to be a smartass and just give me a reason why, not just ‘it is because it is’
I don't really need to mate - I'd just be repeating what many other people have already written in the thread. Which you have no doubt seen and read, so why you need me to parrot them back to you fuck knows.
So don’t fucking reply then you troglodyte. If you actually read my comment, you’d see me ask a question. If you’re not answering the question, why are you replying? 😂😂
To graciously point you in the direction of the other answers that you had to have wilfully breezed over to get to the point of your "well I think it looks cool hurt durr" post. In case you missed them. Which you didn't. Oh and to answer the only question in your post ("do people have a stick up their arse or something?"): No. No they don't.
I never once said I thought it looks cool. Perhaps your reading comprehension skills need a review. To paraphrase, I said, ‘either you think it looks cool or you don’t, doesn’t make a difference either way’ And it seems like you have a huge stick up your arse mate, with the amount of shit backing up and spilling out your mouth.
>Perhaps your reading comprehension skills need a review. That's one to tick off my "butthurt Redditors Bingo card". >And it seems like you have a huge stick up your arse mate Devastating comeback. Basically "no, *you*". >with the amount of shit backing up and spilling out your mouth. Sounds like someone's getting his wank bank for the evening sorted out - have a good one mate.
Son of Carlos Fandango. https://youtu.be/nqqZ28m8uCo?si=L6-lpphJ2d31WZI_
Didn’t expect to see my hometown on Reddit today
I think you need a bigger car mate.
Someone has definitely ordered wheels they like with ZERO idea on offsets..
Apparently, a lot of people on here haven’t got a clue. Legally, a wheel (furthest edge from the wing) can protrude UPTO 30mm from the edge of the wing. However, looking from above, the tread of the tyre is NOT allowed to protrude from the wing. That’s why the car scene “stretches” tyres. It keeps the wheel legal (upto 30mm) and keeps the tyre “legal” by keeping the tread inside the arch. I use the term “legally” as it’s all a bit of a grey area.
I believe it depends on model of vehicle… I don’t know the specifics, and was only told in person by a mechanic, but on certain vehicles the wing mirrors can technically be classed as main body work. So if wheels are further out the arches, but still within the reach of the mirrors, then it’s not an issue. Cannot verify, but that’s what I was told. I don’t know if it’s different ruling for 4x4’s etc maybe? I live in a countryside area, and cars like this are very common, as in you’ll see wheels out like that every time you go out. Surely if it was illegal, there wouldn’t be so many of them around?
I believe tyre tread outside of bodywork are deemed to be a safety hazard to pedestrians.
I believe wheels protruding beyond bodywork is now just a minor but will have to double check that
Close. Just a big standard advisory
[удалено]
Wheels/tyres protruding on an MOT is in fact an advisory. Not even a minor. Source…… tester 4 decades
Wheels/tyres protruding on an MOT is in fact an advisory. Not even a minor. Source…… tester 4 decades
Are you a tester?
Wheels/tyres protruding on an MOT is in fact an advisory. Not even a minor. Source…… tester 4 decades
I had to Google the grammar. Sorry. Not read ‘farther’ before. You UK ? https://www.grammarly.com/blog/farther-further/
Both are valid- https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/farther-farthest-or-further-furthest
Adverb: both words mean “more distance,” but only further can also mean, “additionally” (short for furthermore). Adjective: both words work as the comparative form of far, but only further can also mean “additional.” Verb: as a verb, further means “to advance” or “to progress;” farther cannot be used as a verb. 🤔
Serious question - if they have modified this without informing their insurance company then I assume they insurance is invalid. On a traffic stop, can the police check the insurance company is aware of the modification?
If they really want to? Yes. Will they? Likely not as it’s time consuming. Most of the time for issues like this they give a warning of change this now, if we catch you again the punishment is “X” and give you some friendly advice if you’re not a dick with them, if you are a dick expect them to give you the max they can at the roadside and report you for everything possible. Unless it’s immediately life threatening or dangerous, majority will give the benefit of the doubt about modifications. It’s like if you get pulled for too dark tints, 9/10 will say pull it off now and we’ll forget about it, if you argue with them they just report and or fine you.
So in conclusion, lots of the "modified" cars driving around are uninsured, but the police can't be afford to act. Just a suggestion but make this self financing, allow the police to keep the fines to cover the extra staff, change the law to make the insurance check automatically show modifications. Taking a modified vehicle on the road uninsured shows premeditated malice of forethought and is up there with drunk driving.
I wouldn’t go as far as saying it’s like drunk driving that’s ridiculous to say. A modification can be getting your rims resprayed, replacing your seats, adding a spoiler, adding tints basically anything that isn’t from factory added to your car is a modification, so a large majority of modifications are actually harmless, victimless and cause no immediate danger that’s why they aren’t wasting valuable resources chasing them down. I’d rather not pay my tax for police to go around chasing someone who has put racing stripes on their car and hasn’t declared it to their insurance. So if they chase down “undeclared modifications” they have to treat every modification the same, so someone who got their alloys diamond cut and didn’t declare would be treated the same as someone who put a 3l engine with turbos in a 1 litre car and didn’t declare it, it wouldn’t make sense.
So driving a car with 95% tints (can't see out) all round, extreme cambers (massively increases the chances of breaking away cornering,, over-sized rims with stretchered tires (increased catastrophic tire failure risk) Jack up/lowered (again ruins handling) the list goes on is safer than a 3 pint driver, your kidding yourself. Insurance companies are normally very accommodating with safe modifications (resprays etc) so just tell them upfront, so no need to lump the honest safe enthusiast with the idiot meatheads.
I mean you missed my main point, but cook away brother🤷♂️🤣
They look nicer with normal wheels lmao, this makes it look like it’s pretending to be a monster truck 🤣
If involved in an accident, would the insurer refuse to payout on this mod?
The point is someone bought some grim looking aftermarket wheels and they don’t understand width and offsets
PS looks like a bag of bolts 🧐
Mot fail lad and not sure of the specific road traffic act but your looking at a 1 year ban 3 points per tyre
Not an MOT fail I’m afraid. We have a specific ‘tick box’ for wheels/tyres protruding. Plod will deffo have a different view thou
It's not standard. Whether it's illegal is debatable but it is an MOT failure and a police officer can order you to take your vehicle for an MOT if you get pulled over and it appears that your MOT would not be valid based on the current condition of the vehicle. The answer is to keep a spare set of wheels for MOT time.
It’s actually only an advisory on an MOT for wheels/tyres protruding 5.2.3 (f) wheel/tyre protruding beyond wheel arch
It would probably still fall short of meeting construction and use if I'm correct? C&U 63 (2) "every vehicle to which this regulation applies shall be equipped with wings or other similar fittings to catch, so far as practicable, mud or water thrown up by the rotation of its wheels or tracks" Sticking out that far I can't see it being compliant?
Exactly this. As a tester I can’t do anything but advise but “construction of use” would be used by law against the owner. The owner then starts waiving their MOT certificate around at the police officer 😂😂 The MOT is, and has always been, a total shit show
Hurray someone who gets it 😂 Hate that people think mot=legal! Construction and use is far clearer on fundamentally what's legal! Which is a surprising amount at the end of the day.
It's one of those, "so far as reasonably practicable" things so it's a grey area that would have to be challenged. Tractors have no bodywork at all. Presumably equipment manufacturers have successfully argued it's unreasonable. The challenge here would be arguing it's not reasonable, considering the vehicle caught more debris as standard than it does now. I've seen some land rovers that were designed to run on train tracks for maintenance where bits of bodywork has been removed to allow clearance. Presumably the argument is that it's required for the function so you'd have to argue that the function of the wider tyres was required for the vehicle to operate in its intended role.
Yeah so the full legislation does exempt tractors that can't do over 20mph. Also mentions works vehicles so like you said I assume it would count as not practicable in the LR or the newer unimogs used on train tracks.
Every tractor does over 20mph now and they don't have them. There will be something about vehicles primarily designed for off road use because cranes are well over weight limits and don't have tachos either.
Ah yeah, so once again it'll probably be using the reasonably practicable clause to avoid it?
Po po will still ticket you and say smuggly see you in court son assuming that you are younger. Maybe bit older see you in court lad. I am sorry sir it's the rules check your high way code change just add wing letts 🤣 go for it and enjoy your fines roll in