General Prospective new owner.. few questions!

306maxi · Aug 11, 2011

jrkitching said:
Let's keep it interesting and consider the position if you go the other way and fit steel wheels to a model which would normally be fitted with alloys...

Are they e marked?

You could certainly argue that the car is less desireable to steal. I would imagine in the event of a writeoff they would probably want the alloys back as they've insured the car on the basis that it's got alloys and when selling it for salvage they'll want the alloys which I think is fair enough. Thing is manufacturers can't legally have it both ways

An alloy wheel either increases risk (thereby increasing premiums) or it decreases risk.

loveshandbags · Aug 11, 2011

bgunn said:
I'm not disputing that fact, but an E marked 'performance' brake pad, from a known 'performance' brake parts manufacturer (whether they're actually effective is a completely moot point) fitted to a car could constitute an extra risk and thus be deemed as a cause for an accident. Insurance companies WILL try and get out of paying a claim if at all possible, so I would definitely declare a set of brake pads that weren't strictly OEM spec (i.e. uprated in some way, E marked or not).

Technically, it's illegal to fit parts that aren't and use the car on the road, so the insurance would be void anyway.

This thread shows the difference in braking distance (not much) over a performance pad and an OEM.

This is an email for a supplier. I wonder if these expensive pads from a very reputable brand have a 'E' mark to satisfy the insurance guys.

Dear Michael,
RE: Ferodo DS2500 front brake pads
Not in the uk on a car made after 2000. they have too much friction and fail the test as a result - check your local laws
*Balance Motorsport *
Tel: (01903) 879111 line 1
Tel: (0871) 288 3294 line 2 and Technical Support
www.balancemotorsport.co.uk

306maxi · Aug 11, 2011

bgunn said:
I'm not disputing that fact, but an E marked 'performance' brake pad, from a known 'performance' brake parts manufacturer (whether they're actually effective is a completely moot point) fitted to a car could constitute an extra risk and thus be deemed as a cause for an accident. Insurance companies WILL try and get out of paying a claim if at all possible, so I would definitely declare a set of brake pads that weren't strictly OEM spec (i.e. uprated in some way, E marked or not).

Technically, it's illegal to fit parts that aren't and use the car on the road, so the insurance would be void anyway.

Insurance companies are not allowed to discriminate in that fashion though. That's why, regardless of whether you've got the best tyres in the world or the worst, as long as they've got the right dimensions, load rating, speed rating,of legal tread depth and are e marked then they're 110% legal. They could possibly ping you if your pressures were too low or above the maximum recommended pressures though. E marked = 1,000,000,000% legal.

306maxi · Aug 11, 2011

loveshandbags said:
This thread shows the difference in braking distance (not much) over a performance pad and an OEM.

This is an email for a supplier. I wonder if these expensive pads from a very reputable brand have a 'E' mark to satisfy the insurance guys.

Dear Michael,
RE: Ferodo DS2500 front brake pads
Not in the uk on a car made after 2000. they have too much friction and fail the test as a result - check your local laws
*Balance Motorsport *
Tel: (01903) 879111 line 1
Tel: (0871) 288 3294 line 2 and Technical Support
www.balancemotorsport.co.uk

Funnily enough, DS2500's AREN'T e-marked. Seems to be a pattern here........

loveshandbags · Aug 11, 2011

306maxi said:
Funnily enough, DS2500's AREN'T e-marked. Seems to be a pattern here........

The Mintex 1144s are E marked and they would have similar characteristics to the Ferodo 2500 as a fast road pad. Unfortunately ? there are none currently for the 500.

http://www.rauchperformance.com/sachsmintex.html

bgunn · Aug 11, 2011

306maxi said:
Insurance companies are not allowed to discriminate in that fashion though. That's why, regardless of whether you've got the best tyres in the world or the worst, as long as they've got the right dimensions, load rating, speed rating,of legal tread depth and are e marked then they're 110% legal. They could possibly ping you if your pressures were too low or above the maximum recommended pressures though. E marked = 1,000,000,000% legal.

You're missing my point here. The Pop steel wheels with narrow tyres are 1,000,000,000% legal if fitted to my Lounge, but they're a deviation from manufacturers specification and thus considered an extra risk factor. Do you know how insurance premiums are calculated?

306maxi · Aug 11, 2011

bgunn said:
You're missing my point here. The Pop steel wheels with narrow tyres are 1,000,000,000% legal if fitted to my Lounge, but they're a deviation from manufacturers specification and thus considered an extra risk factor. Do you know how insurance premiums are calculated?

But the insurance companies can't have it both ways

Either alloys are higher risk or they're not. They literally can't have it both ways.

306maxi · Aug 11, 2011

loveshandbags said:
The Mintex 1144s are E marked and they would have similar characteristics to the Ferodo 2500 as a fast road pad. Unfortunately ? there are none currently for the 500.
http://www.rauchperformance.com/sachsmintex.html

Mintex 1144 are advertised saying "No warm up required"

Here's a bit of a blurb on regulation 90
http://www.mintex.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=61&Itemid=97&lang=enuk

If the m1144's are e marked then Mintex have tested them and they have passed the test. There's a reason why the DS2500's are not e-marked......

This REALLY should be the end of this (non) debate. Please don't let this turn into another TUV approved roof rack debate

bgunn · Aug 11, 2011

306maxi said:
But the insurance companies can't have it both ways Either alloys are higher risk or they're not. They literally can't have it both ways.

Forget the 'alloys' bit here, it's the deviation from manufacturers specification at production time (and that means the particular car) and then the 'correction factor' (i.e. what change is made if you like) is what the deviation actually is. Some things they don't give a monkeys about, some things they do. And it differs between insurance companies, and there's no law against them doing it - the only things they can't change premiums for is race, sex, etc.

RobinPJ · Aug 11, 2011

bgunn said:
You're missing my point here. The Pop steel wheels with narrow tyres are 1,000,000,000% legal if fitted to my Lounge, but they're a deviation from manufacturers specification and thus considered an extra risk factor. Do you know how insurance premiums are calculated?

Why? Deviation from spec is not ipso facto (ie automatically) an extra risk.

It would be totally hopeless for an insurer to argue that the skinnier tyres made the car more likely to crash, if they were tyres fitted to the Pop.

Truth is steelies are cheaper to repair/replace and make the car less desirable to thieves so I am quite sure there would be a reduced risk if anything.

You just have to be sensible dealing with insurers not totally paranoid.

bgunn · Aug 11, 2011

RobinPJ said:
Why? Deviation from spec is not ipso facto (ie automatically) an extra risk.

Not sure why you feel the need to wheel out the latin here..

Fact is, you (i.e. us the motorist) are not in a position to determine whether it's automatically an extra risk or not. Insurance premiums are not determined by sheer logic, they're determined by statistical analysis of accidents and claims.

RobinPJ · Aug 11, 2011

bgunn said:
Not sure why you feel the need to wheel out the latin here..

Fact is, you (i.e. us the motorist) are not in a position to determine whether it's automatically an extra risk or not. Insurance premiums are not determined by sheer logic, they're determined by statistical analysis of accidents and claims.

Yes, however, de minimis non curat lex.

loveshandbags · Aug 11, 2011

306maxi said:
Mintex 1144 are advertised saying "No warm up required"

Here's a bit of a blurb on regulation 90
http://www.mintex.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=61&Itemid=97&lang=enuk

If the m1144's are e marked then Mintex have tested them and they have passed the test. There's a reason why the DS2500's are not e-marked......

This REALLY should be the end of this (non) debate. Please don't let this turn into another TUV approved roof rack debate

This is a very civilised discussion and I have learned that if I can source a E marked performance pad I should in the 'clear' when I inform the insurance company that I strayed from the OEM pad.
Everyone has their own opinion and I respect that but personally I would declare anything that is different to what was 'Dealer supply'. Trying to prove that you're 'in the clear' should anything go wrong costs money and time.

RobinPJ · Aug 11, 2011

loveshandbags said:
This is a very civilised discussion and I have learned that if I can source a E marked performance pad I should in the 'clear' when I inform the insurance company that I strayed from the OEM pad.
Everyone has their own opinion and I respect that but personally I would declare anything that is different to what was 'Dealer supply'. Trying to prove that you're 'in the clear' should anything go wrong costs money and time.

What about windscreen wipers? (In case it is not obvious, I would not dream of telling my insurer if I were to change mine to non-Fiat ones.)

bgunn · Aug 11, 2011

I wouldn't go so far as not using non FIAT branded parts, but anything that clearly offers some form of performance gain clearly needs to be declared. Equally, something that changes the look of the car in such a way as to deviate from it's standard appearance, and thus make it stand out and possibly draw attention.

My point is, and I was playing devils advocate here but no-one seemed to notice, is that the insurance company can say what they damn well like (within the realms of the law) to get out of paying a claim, and they have a much bigger legal team at their disposal than most motorists to disprove/reject such a claim. Immaculately worded Latin in their sentences, or not.

loveshandbags · Aug 11, 2011

RobinPJ said:
What about windscreen wipers? (In case it is not obvious, I would not dream of telling my insurer if I were to change mine to non-Fiat ones.)

We're splitting hairs here

. I haven't changed the current Funk White to Bosch (I reckon that the majority on here have) but it's evitable and the rear shocks - we wouldn't go there.

RobinPJ · Aug 11, 2011

bgunn said:
I wouldn't go so far as not using non FIAT branded parts, but anything that clearly offers some form of performance gain clearly needs to be declared. Equally, something that changes the look of the car in such a way as to deviate from it's standard appearance, and thus make it stand out and possibly draw attention.

My point is, and I was playing devils advocate here but no-one seemed to notice, is that the insurance company can say what they damn well like (within the realms of the law) to get out of paying a claim, and they have a much bigger legal team at their disposal than most motorists to disprove/reject such a claim. Immaculately worded Latin in their sentences, or not.

Funnily enough, the one thing they almost certainly will not rely on is Latin, because of the desire to get the Plain English Campaign's "Crystal Mark", and/or avoid someone claiming that they didn't understand the policy because it used it.

To answer your previous question, I used the term "ipso facto" because it is a very economical way of saying "in and of itself". Ipso facto is a commonly used term not just in legal situations, but because I recognised that it might not be immediately clear to everyone, or indeed that "in and of itself" might not be totally clear, I gave the alternative of "automatically". There rests the case for the defence.

mjsmke · Aug 11, 2011

It all depends on what the insurance company considers a 'modification' to be.

At a guess, different brands of pads, discs, tyres, wipers etc... are not really modifications if they are a similar spec. However larger discs and wider tyres could be considered a performance upgrade. Which is silly because wider tyres and larger discs will help you stop quicker. it wont make the car any faster.

Maybe its because, statistically, i driver who has/will upgrade their tyres and discs to wider/larger, is more likely to drive faster?

loveshandbags · Aug 11, 2011

bgunn said:
I wouldn't go so far as not using non FIAT branded parts, but anything that clearly offers some form of performance gain clearly needs to be declared. Equally, something that changes the look of the car in such a way as to deviate from it's standard appearance, and thus make it stand out and possibly draw attention.

My point is, and I was playing devils advocate here but no-one seemed to notice, is that the insurance company can say what they damn well like (within the realms of the law) to get out of paying a claim, and they have a much bigger legal team at their disposal than most motorists to disprove/reject such a claim. Immaculately worded Latin in their sentences, or not.

I would agree with bgunn about the insurance guys. One look at anyone with Public Liability cover will give you an indication of what a business owner has to do to minimise his exposure for a claim. On the 'car incident in the MX5' in 1999 I challenged my own insurance company's recommendation (Cornhill) on paying out and I took it too court. Exposure cost of IR£10K since I had to get the solicitor to hire a barrister. The Barrister won it for me but I wouldn't go through it again. My area of weakness were that the tyres on the car were original fit Jap tyres which 'slid' on the wet road. With the new regs those tyres would have been in breech.

jrkitching · Aug 11, 2011

RobinPJ said:
Why? Deviation from spec is not ipso facto (ie automatically) an extra risk.

It would be totally hopeless for an insurer to argue that the skinnier tyres made the car more likely to crash, if they were tyres fitted to the Pop.

Truth is steelies are cheaper to repair/replace and make the car less desirable to thieves so I am quite sure there would be a reduced risk if anything.

You just have to be sensible dealing with insurers not totally paranoid.

Exactly. No reasonable person could validly argue that putting the standard OEM wheels & tyres off a Pop onto a Lounge increases the risk

. Besides, most folks who fit winter tyres will also be switching their alloys for steelies in the process

.

General Prospective new owner.. few questions!

Currently reading: General Prospective new owner.. few questions!

STOP! Hammer time!

STOP! Hammer time!

STOP! Hammer time!

STOP! Hammer time!

STOP! Hammer time!

Prominent member

Prominent member

Prominent member

Prominent member

New member

Moderator

Similar threads

Currently reading:
General Prospective new owner.. few questions!