Run flat tyres

[rayaans]

6 hours ago, cur666 said:

"If you alter or modify your vehicle from the manufacturers original specification without informing your insurance company, you are at risk of having your policy declared void."

Yes. But like I said before - how far do you go? Theoretically they could argue that your windscreen wipers are of a different brand. Same with the kwik fit brake pads on the car, or the LED interior bulbs.... 

Its a never ending thing. 

Besides, my insurer Admiral has said it doesnt need to be declared as long as the size, load and speed ratings are the same or better than the ones fitted from factory

[NemesisUK]

Just now, rayaans said:

Besides, my insurer Admiral has said it doesnt need to be declared as long as the size, load and speed ratings are the same or better than the ones fitted from factory

Presumably in response to you asking them? That's all that's being said here, notify the insurer and you've covered all the bases

[royoftherovers]

10 minutes ago, rayaans said:

Yes. But like I said before - how far do you go? Theoretically they could argue that your windscreen wipers are of a different brand. Same with the kwik fit brake pads on the car, or the LED interior bulbs.... 

Its a never ending thing. 

Besides, my insurer Admiral has said it doesnt need to be declared as long as the size, load and speed ratings are the same or better than the ones fitted from factory

Just comply with the conditions of your policy and stop theorising.

[rayaans]

4 minutes ago, royoftherovers said:

Just comply with the conditions of your Policy and stop theorising.

Stupid comment. We all know that

Like i said, Id be ringing them up everytime I change my wipers, brake pads or screenwash. Ive got 4 cars to deal with

[royoftherovers]

3 minutes ago, rayaans said:

Stupid comment. We all know that

Like i said, Id be ringing them up everytime I change my wipers, brake pads or screenwash. Ive got 4 cars to deal with

So have I and I don`t theorise in respect of any.

If you wish to make the law, then be an  M.P.

[First_Lexus]

1 hour ago, rayaans said:

Like i said, Id be ringing them up everytime I change my wipers, brake pads or screenwash. Ive got 4 cars to deal with

^^ I thought we were talking about items different to the original specification of the car i.e. non runflats in place of runflats, or Winter tyres instead of ‘normal.’ As long as a wiper blade or screen wash is the same spec as OEM then that’s totally different imho.

Oddly, when I was insured with Admiral and spoke with them about Winter tyres they were the fussiest, although I guess it may depend a) on who you speak with and b) the exact question that is asked.

[rayaans]

2 hours ago, First_Lexus said:

^^ I thought we were talking about items different to the original specification of the car i.e. non runflats in place of runflats, or Winter tyres instead of ‘normal.’ As long as a wiper blade or screen wash is the same spec as OEM then that’s totally different imho.

Oddly, when I was insured with Admiral and spoke with them about Winter tyres they were the fussiest, although I guess it may depend a) on who you speak with and b) the exact question that is asked.

But see some Lexus vehicles come with aero wipers, some with hybrid design, if you switch them over which is quite common, do you have to tell your insurance?

Again, same with ceramic pads. 

As for screenwash, some BMWs for example state that you cant use anything other than their screenwash in the tank. Theyre well known to refuse warranty claims for this reason so would this be another disclosure to insurance then?

3 hours ago, royoftherovers said:

So have I and I don`t theorise in respect of any.

If you wish to make the law, then be an  M.P.

Last time I checked, you havent posted anything of significance with regards to changing the "spec" of your vehicle so I dont think disclosing anything to insurance even applies.

[dublet]

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/107964/car-modification-impact-on-insurance-cover-revealed

TL;DR: It all really depends on your insurer.

[Barry14UK]

Suppose you fit a dash cam, which is something we are being encouraged to do.  This is a modification.  It adds value, (miniscule amount) to the car and something a thief would find attractive so should insurers be informed of this?  Also, I remove the actual TomTom but the bracket for it remains in place, albeit secured by double sided tape - best quality.  I also on occasion leave a silver reflective cover beneath the front windscreen inside the car.  These are not permanently in place so I wonder whether insures need to know this.  And what about connecting up a smart charger? I think insurers could give better guidance on this.  I suppose if everybody who did something slightly different contacted their insurers to check, insurers might be more forthcoming at the outset. 

PS.  Omitting a cat or replacing one with a non standard one could be a modification but what about adding a cat protector, still a notifiable modification?

[Brian R]

Sometimes I do wonder where this notion that everything should be notified to an insurer comes from. To be honest, in the real world, an insurer would be hard pushed to refuse insurance on matters that have no bearing on a claim. I am sure if they were challenged, they would struggle to justify any payout refusal if they ever did refuse in the first place.

So, 90 plus percent of cars on the road use "normal" tyres and remarkably they are deemed perfectly acceptable. You then replace your also perfectly acceptable run flats with "normal" tyres and these are now said to be unacceptable. Is this really the case? I honestly believe against this scenario any refusal to pay out would be rejected given run flats do not a safer car make, they make a puncture a less inconvenient matter.

All too often I have heard so much that is absolute nonsense. The one that always sticks in my mind that National Trust members should get permission or advise their insurers they have put a NT sticker on their windscreens! Really whilst we know or at least believe insurers should be notified of everything including whether brake pads are OEM or as is more likely non OEM, in reality it doesn't work like that.

Last year my sons MX5 (wonderful car) was T boned. His car had much attention lavished on it and had a number of features that I know would not have been advised to his insurer. In practice his insurer was very good and following a bit of negotation they paid the full retail value of the car which incidentally was written off. No mention whatsoever about this or that mod but if one were to believe the hype that is all too often generated and amplified by forums, they wouldn't think twice about refusing a pay out.

Finally, and given another all too often scenario as follows. You buy a second hand car and it looks stock. However, from what others here have suggested, you should now have the car forensically examined to find out with is OEM and what is not so you can advise your insurer. Does this happen in the real world, no, of course it doesn't! Surely even a court of law would not reasonably have expected you to go to that extreme! What if the car has a valid MOT (yes, I know this is a bit tenuous, but please bear with me) which indirectly deems it safe to be on the road and yes I know on the day of the test. Did the MOT tester check whose brake pads were in use  - no of course they didn't and nonetheless it passes its test because what was on the car passed testing standards deeming it to be safe. Exactly the same with tyres and by way of an example my BMW run flats aka "ditch finders" were replaced with far, far safer (at that time) non RF's. That car went through 6 or 7 MOT's with absolutely no reference to "incorrect" tyres and for that matter that particular car was also fitted with what were obviously non standard (albeit BMW) wheels which were also never disputed.

Remember whilst you are in contract with an insurer said insurer cannot invoke terms that are beyond ridiculous and do remember you are invariably asked to answer policy questions "to the best of your knowledge".

[royoftherovers]

9 hours ago, dublet said:

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/107964/car-modification-impact-on-insurance-cover-revealed

TL;DR: It all really depends on your insurer.

Exactly, but he will not listen.

[Phil xxkr]

20 hours ago, dutchie01 said:

Banks, Insurance Companies and the Tax Office are not your friend and you certainly dont want you as your enemy. They are all friendly as long as the money goes in one direction, theirs. If you report a substantial claim the first thing that ll happen is for them to see if they can prevent paying and the bigger the sum the more rigurous their handling will be. Handling of a 5k claim will be swift and easy but now try getting 100k or more you could be in for a surprise.

On the topic of wintertyres Germany is interesting. Officially by law not mandatory but your insurer will not pay anything if you get into an accident on slippery winter roads and have no winters! 

And there you get to the true heart of the matter - money. For years there have been firms who advise insurance companies on how to avoid paying claims when pitted against you an individual😳. But as John says the contract is the contract is the contract. Although insurance is mandatory firm's are not so change your choice. And perhaps now will be a good time to survey the club for their experience of good or slippery firms. 

[dublet]

While a contract is a contract is a contract, when it comes to law there are still reasonable defences. In UK law there is the concept of the a reasonable person, reasonable man, or the man on the Clapham omnibus. Will a "reasonable person" consider changing wipers as a modification? Probably no. Will a reasonable man consider using run flat tyres compared to non run flat a modification? Probably not. In fact a reasonable person would think you're a fool for going to a dealership to purchase OEM wipers when you could just pop to Halfords. A reasonably person would go to their local tyre shop and ask for some new rubbers on the wheels.

There's also the fact that a contract may not override legal protections you have. For instance, you can sign a contract to have your legs chopped off in exchange for money, but that would not be a valid legal contract.

So while you should inform your insurer about anything to prevent any shenanigans, by all means let some sense prevail.

Another thread of thought worth bearing in mind is that for an insurance company the cost of an actual vehicle usually pales in comparison to the injury/human cost.

[NemesisUK]

What complicates the swap from run-flat to normal tyres is the need to provide a spare or tyre 'gunk', never mind wheel brace and jack.

So swapping run-flat to normal is somewhat more 'considered' than changing wiper blades ...

[Brian R]

6 hours ago, NemesisUK said:

What complicates the swap from run-flat to normal tyres is the need to provide a spare or tyre 'gunk', never mind wheel brace and jack.

So swapping run-flat to normal is somewhat more 'considered' than changing wiper blades ...

But surely so many new cars simply do not have a wheel brace let alone a jack. Reality is the manufacturer wanted to reduce costs, reduce emissions and therefore decided a can of gunk and a portable compressor is the order of the day. Had this on so many of my cars I've lost account. The little Honda run around we currently have did not originally come with a spare, but someone put one in the boot, so definitely not OEM. Suppose I ought to declare that to the insurers 😉 for fear they dream up a reason not to pay out. It really is a joke when you start to analyse matters.

[royoftherovers]

Hello Brian.......sorry, but you forgot the Torque Wrench and possibly the need to buy a Hydraulic jack depending whether or not there are jacking points on the car😉

The manufacturer was forced under pain of a huge financial penalty by the E.U. to reduce the average CO2 output of his vehicles and this he did by amongst other things, eliminating the weight of carrying a spare wheel. T`was us the motorist which paid hugely.

 

[Brian R]

9 hours ago, royoftherovers said:

Hello Brian.......sorry, but you forgot the Torque Wrench and possibly the need to buy a Hydraulic Jack depending whether or not there are jacking points on the car😉

The manufacturer was forced under pain of a huge financial penalty by the E.U. to reduce the average CO2 output of his vehicles and this he did by amongst other things, eliminating the weight of carrying a spare wheel. T`was us the motorist which paid hugely.

 

Yes John, I can well believe that and to my mind another classic situation where the consequences of ones actions are not thought through. I fear/know we are going to see far more of this in the coming month/years as the climate/tax change agenda kicks in. Meanwhile, don't even get me going on about "heat pumps" as the way forward!!!!!

[UX250h]

I hit a huge pothole which caused my tps system to alert me. After checking the tyre, I carried on driving for 40+ miles until I got to a Kwik fit depot who replaced the tyre. Imagine if this happened on a busy motorway, in pouring rain! Can't imagine not having runflats now as they offer fantastic safety.

[Tel]

I have had Lexus Insurance for the last 20 years & have always had the largest wheel option fitted to the new vehicle & latter-day, front & rear Dashcams .

Never had an Issue with damaged wheel/tyre combos.

I take my cars to a Porsche Bodyshop whose repair Quote was deemed  too expensive & was asked to take my car to my Dealers Bodyshop in 2019.

I challenged this & I was surprised when I was allowed to discuss the decision made with the Lexus chap who

rejected the higher claim. He sanctioned my preferred choice.

You get what you pay for & Car Insurance is no different.

Tel

[Hamish2015]

I’m waiting on delivery of my first Lexus after owning many BMW’s using RFT’s, I was surprised to find out my UX will be fitted with them also. There are pros and cons for them, they are generally more expensive and noisy than standard tyres and ride is more harsh. This is offset by the fact you can drive up to 50 miles on them in the event of a puncture although this happened to me once and the driving experience when there is minimal pressure in them is not good at all., in fact it’s horrendous. I have contemplated carrying a sealant aerosol and compressor to make things a bit better for handling, some garages will also repair them if the defect is within prescribed areas but its a bit hit or miss. All in all I’m not too phased about having them but would prefer normal and a space saver tyre, although the boot is small enough already!! 

[Andy444]

I have run Flats on my UX and found they are cracking between tread ( Bridgestone )

the still have 6mm of tread minimum and I expected more life from them and would like a response from Bridgestone 

[Lmafudd]

27 minutes ago, Andy444 said:

I have run Flats on my UX and found they are cracking between tread ( Bridgestone )

the still have 6mm of tread minimum and I expected more life from them and would like a response from Bridgestone 

I've had this with other brands and they always put it down to age. 5 years outside in all weathers clearly damages the rubber. I can't recall seeing a length of service guarantee anywhere but I may be wrong.