Yes...you are correct on both counts! At first they were like we can do this right away, but the grift went south after they asked me to schedule an appointment and leave the bike there.
I politely declined and will try again w/ another station. I'm not denying these are close to there end, but they shouldn't fail inspection.
Here's a quick run down of the Massachusetts rules for motorcycle tires (don't ask me why the reference to farm vehicles though):
8) Tires. Only pneumatic rubber tires shall be permitted. Inspect tires and reject motorcycle if:
(a) There is a fabric break or cut, bulge, bump or knot related to the deterioration of the tire structure.
(b) There is any ply or cord structure visible.
(c) There is less than 2/32" of tread depth-measured in a major tread grove nearest the tire center using a tire tread depth gauge.
(d) Tire is worn so that a tread wear indicator contacts the road surface in any two adjacent groves.
(e) Tire has been repaired with a sidewall plug or patch. Tire tube, if known, has been patched.
(g) There is any combination of radial ply tire with non-radial tire, unless approved by tire or motorcycle manufacturer.
(h) Tires designated as front or rear only are improperly mounted or tires with directional arrow indication are mounted with arrow in improper rotating direction.
(i) Tire is not type approved by the Department of Transportation and/or does not have a "D.O.T." designation on the sidewall, or is labeled "Not For Highway Use," "For Racing Purposes Only" or displays other similar marking (except for farm vehicles, implements of husbandry, and if off-road equipment is used on highway at restricted speeds).
(j) Tire is obviously under or over-inflated.
(k) Tire is smaller than manufacturer's specified minimum or a size that causes tire to contact with the body or chassis.
(l) There are rusted or rotted valve stems.
(m) A tube type tire is used in a tubeless application.
Haha - I just had an inspection fail on my bike here in NZ - for the same thing - but my tyres were a wee bit more worn than yours. Our legislation states that a tyre must not have any of it's primary grooves less than 1.5 mm deep. A primary groove is one with a wear indicator - there's usually a small TWI (Tread Wear Indicator) marked on the edge of the sidewall (well, there is on my Metzlers). Mine failed at 1.2mm depth.
Funny thing is that my front tyre passed easily - as the TWI's are on the centre grooves - which are still quite deep. However - the sides are chewed out, and nearly knackered. Some of the side grooves are probably less than a mm deep...
It can be ridden safely for a little while longer, but you may as well change it to avoid whatever consequences you might encounter as a result of failing rhe inspection.
Wow and I thought California was over regulated. I always go by the wear bar marks on the the tire. I truly believe the manufacture is being overly cautious with those, 1) so they don't get sued 2) the faster they can make you buy another one of their tires they'll do it. But i still use it to determine when I need new tires though.
I just find it odd the state inspection site is motor cycle shop.
Not sure how the rest of the country does it, but here in MA..most inspection stations (moto & auto) are also repair shops or dealers. This is an independent owner operated moto repair shop about 10 miles from my house (nice route too). I really wanted to like them, but this is my 3rd bad experience and I think I'm done. Too bad.
Yes, I'm going to do this this week. I never got the "fail" sticker b/c they put the bike to the side to do the tire change so they could reinspect after. When the service manager told me they couldn't do right away, I rode off. I can try again on Tuesday somewhere else.
In either case Ill change the tire next weekend myself (I have tires on order, and I have a Nomar).
While we're on the topic of tyre wear - this is one I took a little close to the edge...
The last 130 kms home was taken VERY carefully. I knew it was getting down - and that they can go from 'looking OK' to 'Oh shit' quite quickly (see below), so was checking it whenever I stopped.
And before you ask - yes, I've had one that was worse (much!). Years (about 18) ago now... It was so bad, that when I took it off, the carcase collapsed along the centre line - it was probably less than 1mm thick. I didn't cut it to check - but it was through at least the first layer of cords. And I thought it had a good couple of thousand kms in it when I left home. :crazy:
Hey Slow-man...I see UR on the East side of Sherborn. If you need to buy URself a week, try Framingham Tire. Right near the old Chicken Bone. They inspect Autos and bikes. I had my fleet done there. Tell then the gent with all the Italian bikes, and his GF's bikes recommended his place to you.
Just don't go in with an attitude...I'm betting he'd pass you. You might mention that you do have new ones on order, and plan to do them ASAP.
He's right on South Street. about 300 feet where 126 crosses 135.
Take Farm Road to Maple St, to Western Ave (past Adessa)
Hey Slow-man...I see UR on the East side of Sherborn. If you need to buy URself a week, try Framingham Tire. Right near the old Chicken Bone. They inspect Autos and bikes. I had my fleet done there. Tell then the gent with all the Italian bikes, and his GF's bikes recommended his place to you.
Diablos don't need to be bald (or even nearly) to puncture. I had a rock go through the tread groove on one - that had only done about 1500 kms. The hole was so big, I couldn't even use a emergency roadside patch. And I've had several other punctures with them (they seem to be quite prone to punctures). But yeah - in an ideal world, I would have changed the tyre before the ride - but when I left home - it was looking worn - but no cracks in it. They appeared about 300kms later (spotted them when I was getting gas) - when I was still 120kms or so from home.
I have a customer in Mass. that was also failed for worn out tires, She ordered tires from me and when she showed up to install them I could not believe what I saw. Not only were they not worn out she proceeded to re-test elsewhere (I cannot do Ma. inspections) and pass with no problems.
I finally mounted the tires she bought from me this spring.... about 3000 miles later! There are some crooks out there but I would prefer to think the person measuring was just plain wrong.
I would have asked the service manager to show you how it failed. The tools to measure are very simple and mandated by the state for them to have them. They should be happy to show you what they considered a failure.
I would have asked the service manager to show you how it failed. The tools to measure are very simple and mandated by the state for them to have them. They should be happy to show you what they considered a failure.
I'm pretty sure I know how they failed. He placed the gauge perpendicular to the axis of the groove vs parallel...like so:
I didn't argue, b/c they weren't looking for reasons to pass me. They wanted to sell me a new tire (@ $120 over what I can get the tire for elsewhere). As I said, I was damn near tempted, until they couldn't do it right away. Then my senses came back to me. I'll replace both tires for less than they quoted me for the one.
No, I think it's "as seen". In this state everyone is required to get an annual inspection, but there is no provision to guesstimate or insure whether they'll comply for a specific term. What's to stop someone from getting an inspection and tearing it up on a track the next weekend? Massachusetts is draconian, but not Australia draconian (or at least not like the regulations in Victoria / NSW based on the stories I've heard.).
is there a time frame that the inspection has to account for? here we have to do roadworthy certificates to change registered owner, etc, and the rwc has a 30 day duration. which means that within that 30 days, the tyres (for instance) have to remain legal. if they don't, theoretically the owner can go back to the testing place and demand new tyres for free.
i used to do rwc, and i was a real nazi. mainly because we needed our licence for the bikes we sold, and we weren't going to lose our licence because of some pissing and moaning arsehole. the abuse i got was quite amazing at times. tyres, non std exhaust (illegal), steering head bearings, etc, i've heard all the excuses. i once had a guy screaming at me for not giving him an rwc, even though he had told me just prior to me going for a ride on it that the speedo didn't work. he figured that was ok.
i don't do rwc anymore, i don't need the agro.
plus it was a legal document with my signature on it. people don't get that if you sign it, you're responsible for it. meaning if it goes really bad, you get prosecuted or sued.
and i would have knocked those tyres based on our system.
In the US, it varies by State. In VA, inspection is yearly and can be done by any shop or dealer that has an Inspector(s) passed by the State Police. In MD, it is done once at the time of purchase, whether new or used. As people above have found, results vary about passing or failing. But, in DC, it is a State sponsored racket. I work for a VW Dealer in VA and hear stories about DC's inspections. The most recent one was an "inspector" broke a part and failed the car for that fault while my customer was watching. No recourse without an absolutely obscene amount of time and expense going up against the State. And DC wonders why no one respects them.
I do - every cop in the County knows me, and a yellow Ducati is pretty obvious around here.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Ducati.ms - The Ultimate Ducati Forum
2.5M posts
93.6K members
Since 2005
A forum community dedicated to all Ducati owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about performance, modifications, troubleshooting, superbike racing, maintenance, and more!