![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
ankit816: new tyres - at the rear, whether the car is front or rear wheel drive. Fitting new tyres to the front can result in oversteer and loss of control."
xpd:When putting new 2 tyres on a car, I prefer to put them on the front and move the others to the rear - my reasoning for this is that the front is what drives my car, and turns it. Others say to do it the other way round....but I prefer to be able to move and turn safely :)
xpd:pinkydot: I had my wof done early this month and failed both front tyres. They good enough to issue me two extra week of wof when I had time to get the tyres changed.
Once I had the front tyres changed, I went back to the same place. they just reissue the new 6 months wof without extra charges.
And which dodgy shop was this ?
So they knowingly let you back on the road altho you were driving a potentially dangerous vehicle ?
How would you have felt if you had hit someone because of one of the tyres ?
Bung:xpd:When putting new 2 tyres on a car, I prefer to put them on the front and move the others to the rear - my reasoning for this is that the front is what drives my car, and turns it. Others say to do it the other way round....but I prefer to be able to move and turn safely :)
This is an issue that provokes endless argument. The tyre manufacturers say that all tyres should be in safe condition but if there were two in better condition they should be on the back. Their reasoning is that if the better tyres were on the front you could drive yourself into a situation where the rear lose grip. Very few drivers can recover from sudden oversteer and usually spin off. A lot more can detect and recover from understeer.
ratsun81: I used to work in tyre shops several years back.
My advice on tyres and management is
If you are replacing 2 tyres and have directional's then it is best to match with the same type. If that is not possible then replace all 4.
If you have Asymmetrical tyres then you must match them or replace all of them.
If the tyres are non directional then it doesnt really matter.
For a FWD car i would personally put the better tyres on the front. however if the ones you aren't replacing are getting marginal then i would get all 4 and negotiate a better price....
Regular tyre rotation (front to back) and regular wheel alignments at 10k should see you having even tyre wear.
pinkydot: I had my wof done early this month and failed both front tyres. They good enough to issue me two extra week of wof when I had time to get the tyres changed.
Once I had the front tyres changed, I went back to the same place. they just reissue the new 6 months wof without extra charges.
robjg63:pinkydot: I had my wof done early this month and failed both front tyres. They good enough to issue me two extra week of wof when I had time to get the tyres changed.
Once I had the front tyres changed, I went back to the same place. they just reissue the new 6 months wof without extra charges.
This from the VTNZ FAQ page:
What if my vehicle fails a WoF inspection?If your vehicle fails a WoF inspection and your old WoF has expired, you are not allowed to drive it on the road unless it is being operated solely for the purpose of obtaining a new WoF. This includes driving it to and from a garage in order to have the necessary repairs carried out. If you fix all the items that require attention within 28 days the vehicle will be re-inspected by the same WoF agent at no extra charge. If you exceed the 28 days from the initial inspection, a new fee and inspection is required.
Note: This is a legal requirement.
They cant issue you with extra time. If your old WOF hadnt yet expired (say it had 2 weeks to go), then I think they are obliged to add that time to the new expiry date. ie you can go in a couple of weeks before expiration and get the 'full' six months on the next WOF.
I would actually think that what you most need to be careful of is the insurance aspects. I would think that the small print of your policy may say that if you havent got a current WOF, or the car isnt of WOF standards then they wont cover you in the event of an accident. There used to be a similar smallprint item that said 'if you have consumed alcohol you may not be covered'. It didnt say anything about legal limits etc. Not sure if those words appear in policies these days - anyone read the smallprint lately?
ankit816: Yes, you are right. My policy states the car must have valid WOF to stay under insurance cover. Not sure if it says anything about having alcohol under / above the legal limit
Bung:ankit816: Yes, you are right. My policy states the car must have valid WOF to stay under insurance cover. Not sure if it says anything about having alcohol under / above the legal limit
My Vero policy states no cover for "6. losses that arise from your vehicle being in an
unsafe or damaged condition:
unless you can prove that such condition did not cause or
contribute to the loss or damage. Cover will still apply if
you can prove that you and the driver were unaware of
such condition and had taken all reasonable steps to
maintain your vehicle in a safe condition."
Whether or not the vehicle has a WOF is not that relevant if the Insurance Co can show that there was something wrong with it. Similarly if the only thing wrong was the lack of the WOF the Insurance Co probably would be liable.
Bung:Whether or not the vehicle has a WOF is not that relevant if the Insurance Co can show that there was something wrong with it.
Similarly if the only thing wrong was the lack of the WOF the Insurance Co probably would be liable.
oxnsox: Not so sure on this. You'd have to have a good reason to not have a warrant I'd think.
It's a similar arguement to 'the cheque is in the mail', isn't it?
|
![]() ![]() ![]() |