open wheels on UK roads?

[macthetank]

Okay so I get why open wheels are not a great idea in the UK - so is there a minimum requirement for arch/wheel covering size to appease the plod?
I'm looking at a ratrod style build and thinking about how open the front wheels could/should be. 

More specifically, I'm considering removing the front wings and most of the bonnet from a Dodge Challenger 

[colnerov]

Hi, Viewed from directly above you should not be able to see the tread of the tyre, sidewall is acceptable. At least that is how it used to be unless it's changed.

Colin

[fr€$h&m1nt¥]

There's a specified ratio of what needs to be covered in front of and behind the tyre - in terms of percentages and angle degrees IIRC.

I think the rules also vary dependent on the age of the car. The earliest challengers were 1970 if you mean a classic challenger so I'd imagine you'd need some kind of replacement arch if you removed the wings completely.

[Ritchie]

Sept 10, 2020 10:45:35 GMT colnerov said:

Hi, Viewed from directly above you should not be able to see the tread of the tyre, sidewall is acceptable. At least that is how it used to be unless it's changed.

Colin

I’m sure a small amount of visible tread is ok, 10mm or something like that.

[crockpot]

I owned this for about a year, never had an issue (apart from ripping the axle off it's mounts at the Hot Rod drags...)

[gettingold]

I think if you are seen driving in the rain with a big spray flume of water behind you the police might have a word. I think this is the issue with no mud guards as far as the police go and i don't think they are to keen on no bonnets either on newer flat bonnet style cars hot rods seem to get away with it more, I'm sure i saw a video of someone taking a ratted polo for a drive with no bonnet skin and got pulled pretty sharpish but the rest of the polo looked like a death trap as well.

[daklone]

Interesting.

It appears that you could be charged with an offence under the Road Traffic Act 1988, section 42(b). This says:

'A person who uses on a road a motor vehicle or trailer which does not comply with such a requirement (to meet the requirements of the Construction and Use Regulations), or causes or permits a motor vehicle or trailer to be so used, is guilty of an offence.'

The relevant part of The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 is Part II, section 63(2). This says:

'...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.'

I can't clarify what the police might deem 'so far as practicable', but I'd be surprised if they didn't consider removing the wings from a car that left the factory with them as a bit of a no-no.

[daklone]

Out of interest, the IVA regulations do specify the requirements for wheel guards (wings and/or cycle guards). Section 37 in the testers manual applies.

[stealthstylz]

Used to be a 25 quid fine but dunno if that's changed. It's definitely illegal though.

[SamV8]

look at the Ariel Atom/Nomad as an idea, they'll likely be as close to minimal arches as possible

[duggers]

Con' & Use reg's carry a bigger penalty than £25, its points and a fine or court if they find more than one item.
Age may be a factor, an old car , modified or not may raise some doubt as to the requirement to meet C&R.
It's a bit like back in the day when people fitted (WTF) cruise lights/neons, if they were connected to the lighting system, as in the switch, they contravene Vehicle lighting regulations, if they were on a separate system no offence.
Ahh vehicle regulations , the sign of democracy.....

[stealthstylz]

Sept 10, 2020 22:08:36 GMT duggers said:

Con' & Use reg's carry a bigger penalty than £25, its points and a fine or court if they find more than one item.
Age may be a factor, an old car , modified or not may raise some doubt as to the requirement to meet C&R.
It's a bit like back in the day when people fitted (WTF) cruise lights/neons, if they were connected to the lighting system, as in the switch, they contravene Vehicle lighting regulations, if they were on a separate system no offence.
Ahh vehicle regulations , the sign of democracy.....

I don't think they do. I'll have to dig my paperwork out but when I got stopped in my Vitara and summonsed to court the copper even said the maximum he could give me for them sticking out of the arches (by 3") was £25 or £30 a tyre (which I'd have accepted and paid), hence why he went for the stretched tyres (££££ + 3 points a tyre) and then got bested in court.

[stevethegrease]

Thing is though , old vintage cars don't have mudguards and no one would think of prosecuting them , because they were made like that. I think with old Hot rods, like the old VHRA sort of stuff, it's more trouble for the Police than it's worth, so they turn a blind eye. With something like a 1935 American Ford, where will you find an ' expert' to say it wasn't made like that. There was barely a car with mudguards at Pendine when I went to the VHRA weekend.

[Dez]

The law is clear as mud as to where the line is drawn.

daklone has quoted the correct legislation from the C&R.
There is no minimum requirement though, and if you look at most tractors their ‘spray suppression devices’ are minimal at best, Easily 3/4 of the Rear wheel circumference is unguarded, often entirely so on the front, and the same laws apply to them as cars- they don’t have any special dispensation for being an agricultural vehicle.

IVA guidelines are irrelevant to cars not being presented for an IVA test, as are the MOT ones regarding tread projection from an existing arch as there is no existing arch to measure projection from.

The wording used to be ‘spray suppression devices need to be fitted to prevent unnecessary nuisance to other road users from spray in wet conditions’ or something similar, I’m not sure if it still is. I know someone who got pulled in a fenderless car In the dry and when fined took it to court to argue that he couldn’t possibly have been causing the aforementioned nuisance as it was dry and he won. It probably wasnt the victory you’d think though as He received a disproportionate amount of police attention every time he used the vehicle after that.

Tbh it largely comes down to ‘looking right’. If it’s an early enough body style it’s questionable they were there in the first place, you’re probably not going to get any hassle. I haven’t been pulled in anything fenderless of mine despite being followed by the fuzz a few times.
But if it’s a 50s or newer car with integrated guards as stock that obviously has bits missing or chopped off, you’re going to attract unwanted attention.