Howdy,
On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, Jay Mitchell wrote:
> >My point is that a DOT stamp is just as unenforcable as a
> treadwear
> > stamp.
>
> I think you're mistaken there. I believe that a DOT number molded
> into a tire certifies that certain safety-related requirements
> have been met. Some aftermarket replacement components, like
> certain braided brake flex hoses, are not DOT approved and are
> sold for "off-road use" only.
Ok, my "for sure" knowledge on this stuff is related to DOT motorcycle
tires about 3 years ago, so there's definately salt around.
That said, I believe you are correct. However, the _tire companies_ are
responsible for ensuring that their tires meet the DOT guidelines. And,
just like with SS lines, nothing much happens from an enforcement point of
view until someone sues someone.
Do you honestly think that Hoosier DOT race tires fully meet the DOT
requirements? Why do you think that Hoosier will only advertise/sell them
to racers? If I were wanting to get a lawsuit that I should be able to
win easily, I'd toss a set of Hoosier R tires onto my street car, drive it
for 1k miles, then go drive around in a rainstorm. After the crash, I'd
sue.
I'm under no illusions about the ease of enforcement etc. for ST tires
rules, but I don't see the effort there to be any amount greater than the
current stock class rules. Even if it was harder, the rather strong
popularity of ST shows that its worth the effort.
Mark
|