Insurance advice about tread depth

[bosslady]

I really hope you stop posting soon.

Uneccesary - feel good about yourself? If you don't like seeing my posts, please facilitate the ignore button on my profile page http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/me...36924-bosslady I suggest you do so right now, if my posts upset you so.

[Paul in NZ]

What you need is a written 'opinion' from some kind of authority or witness to state that the condition of the tyre did NOT contribute to the accident.

But beware - if the tyre was not at fault then then the other possibility was that you were going too fast or lacked sufficient skill for the speed. Either way its a possible admission of you culpability. I suppose thet means you excess is doomed regardless.

What (in your opinion) did cause the accident?

[pzkpfw]

[s]I thought the WOF rules on tyres were about depth of tread across the width of the tyre?[/s]

That is, only 3/4 of the width or something had to have "deep enough" tread. Am I wrong?

(Not that I'm saying it's good to use un-evenly worn tyres or anything like that...)


P.S. what's the wording of their terms and conditions? Had a look on their site but couldn't find track day specifics.


P.P.S. OK, am wrong: found this in a PDF on NZTA site:

http://nzta.thomsonreuters.co.nz/DLE....LTR-32013.pdf

Except as otherwise provided in this clause, a tyre on a motor vehicle must have a tread pattern, excluding any tie-bar
or tread depth indicator strip, of not less than 1.5 mm in depth within all principal grooves containing moulded tread
depth indicators, and around the entire circumference of the tyre.

Except as otherwise provided in 2.3(14) to [[2.3(17A)]], for tyres manufactured without moulded tread depth
indicators, the tread depth must be not less than 1.5 mm across at least three-quarters of the width of the tread and
around the entire circumference of the tyre.

etc.

I guess that makes sense. Any modern tyre will have the wear indicators.

[Trade_nancy]

Hey all,

In a bit of strife with an insurance claim of mine.

Backstory. Was at hampton a couple of weeks back. Managed to lay my bike down mid-way through a tight turn. (Turn 3)
I was covered for the day by Star Insurance (Through Kiwibike). Dropped the bike off at my local, report came back that it was most likely a write off however the bike was not up to WOF standard. They claimed that the rear tire was not woffable. Now the rear will not technically pass a WOF however this is only due to the centre of the tire. The sides, which is was riding on at the time i lost traction, are perfectly fine (2mm plus)

Star are claiming that even though the centre of the tire was not the cause, it is likely that due to the low tread in the centre (1.1mm) the edges of the tire are possibly warped, making the tire unsafe

Kiwibike have asked me to get an independent test done on the tire saying whether or not the centre tread of the tire could have caused me to loose traction. What im after from the KB crew is some advice on a) Do I have a real case here? b) Where to get a legit independent test from someone who could give me the above?

I realise Star may possibly have a legit out here but due to the fact that I was mid-way through the turn, not on a straight, I feel my centre tread depth is irrelevant.

Many thanks in advance!

So assuming the tyre didn't cause the off...what did?

[Crasherfromwayback]

Sorry to hear about your bike. But I do think if you're gonna be doing track days...doing so on a fucked tyre is asking for trouble. Modern tyres work well for the first third of their life...ok (ish) for the next third...and are rooted by the time they get as worn as yours sounds like it was (is).

[jellywrestler]

So assuming the tyre didn't cause the off...what did?

mantrol, or lack of it

[Grant`]

mantrol, or lack of it

Well recently there has been plenty of offs with tar bleed and heat in the track at hd's...

Also depends on speed as to what lean angle was being used also could of been on the worn spot still? 2 into 3 is a transition across that part of the tyre from edge to edge aswell ?

[cowboyz]

My insurance (kiwibike) say bike must be woffable at track days.. No slicks allowed. Which is just dumb. They also ramp the excess to $2000 which is also dumb.
They make their own rules and you have to just put up with it. Funny how in the same breath they raise excess they also will too you it's safer being on the track than on he road. I would prefer they honour the original contract ( nothing in there about extra excess for track use) and let race fairing and tyre Warmers and slicks

[el_scor_cho]

Ok a lot to go on.
First off Im not trying to dodge my excess, because all in all it does fall as my responsibility. But thats why I made sure I was covered.
Last WOF was a good 7 months ago and again I should have checked the tyre levels. Policy words in a round-a-bout way that the bike must be WOFFABLE after my last session on the track.

To be specific, I lost traction rounding the third (or forth) turn at Hampton. The corner was pointed out to us as a trouble turn before the first riders went out and they have since then repaved the entire section. As far as im aware that, mixed with going in too hot threw the bike out from under me.

Not sure if this carries any weight but the Insurance Law Reform Act states that if a defect is found to not have caused the accident, then a claim cannot be denied on such grounds. I realise the tyre is low and not woffable however the low tread is only in the very centre and played no part in loosing traction mid-turn as far as im aware. Guess the onus lies on me to prove this, herein lies the problem...

[GTRMAN]

Ok a lot to go on.
First off Im not trying to dodge my excess, because all in all it does fall as my responsibility. But thats why I made sure I was covered.
Last WOF was a good 7 months ago and again I should have checked the tyre levels. Policy words in a round-a-bout way that the bike must be WOFFABLE after my last session on the track.

To be specific, I lost traction rounding the third (or forth) turn at Hampton. The corner was pointed out to us as a trouble turn before the first riders went out and they have since then repaved the entire section. As far as im aware that, mixed with going in too hot threw the bike out from under me.

Not sure if this carries any weight but the Insurance Law Reform Act states that if a defect is found to not have caused the accident, then a claim cannot be denied on such grounds. I realise the tyre is low and not woffable however the low tread is only in the very centre and played no part in loosing traction mid-turn as far as im aware. Guess the onus lies on me to prove this, herein lies the problem...

So haven't you kinda answered your own question? The tyre was not in a warrantable state after the track day. It was not in a warrantable state at the time of the accident. If the requirement of your policy was that in a warrantable state pretty much at all times and they weren't then you haven't kept up your end of the contract and the policy is null and void.

Harsh but true.....

[Rhys]

Ok a lot to go on.
First off Im not trying to dodge my excess, because all in all it does fall as my responsibility. But thats why I made sure I was covered.
Last WOF was a good 7 months ago and again I should have checked the tyre levels. Policy words in a round-a-bout way that the bike must be WOFFABLE after my last session on the track.

To be specific, I lost traction rounding the third (or forth) turn at Hampton. The corner was pointed out to us as a trouble turn before the first riders went out and they have since then repaved the entire section. As far as im aware that, mixed with going in too hot threw the bike out from under me.

Not sure if this carries any weight but the Insurance Law Reform Act states that if a defect is found to not have caused the accident, then a claim cannot be denied on such grounds. I realise the tyre is low and not woffable however the low tread is only in the very centre and played no part in loosing traction mid-turn as far as im aware. Guess the onus lies on me to prove this, herein lies the problem...

I think you would need a statement from your tyre manufacture stating it was safe and didn't contribute to your off

[Fast Eddie]

To be specific, I lost traction rounding the third (or forth) turn at Hampton. The corner was pointed out to us as a trouble turn before the first riders went out and they have since then repaved the entire section. As far as im aware that, mixed with going in too hot threw the bike out from under me.

haha.. skip to 6:15 on this video..



was that the corner?

[el_scor_cho]

Yes I think it may have been
Thats true it is in my contract (...what I mean by a legit out) but regardless I understand I have a case as the tyre is unrelated to the accident. I just need someone a bit more knowledgeable than myself to put that on paper.

I have flicked Michelin NZ a message to see if they can put me on to that someone.

[p.dath]

tire tread is for in the wet, if it was dry then its not a problem

A track tyre does not use compounds or construction like a road tyre. Trying to say that a road tyre that is 100% bald offers more grip than a tyre that is half worn on a dry track is just plain wrong.

The construction of the carcass, including the tread, is integral to the way that the tyre will flex and dissipate heat.

[imdying]

Funny how in the same breath they raise excess they also will too you it's safer being on the track than on he road.

Safer for you, nothing to do with their level of risk.

If it says you need to have your bike WOFable then you're fucked. Does it say it needs a current WOF, or that it needs to have a current WOF and be in a warrantable condition?

To be specific, I lost traction rounding the third (or forth) turn at Hampton. The corner was pointed out to us as a trouble turn before the first riders went out and they have since then repaved the entire section. As far as im aware that, mixed with going in too hot threw the bike out from under me.

No, the paving has nothing to do with it, only you going in too hot is at fault; your could have always gone around there at a speed suitable for the conditions.