winter tyres

[bahnstormer vrs]

Questions:

Can I use the original Yeti wheel bolts?

Does anyone know if there is a Skoda (or plain) wheel cap that would be suitable? The original Audi ones plug into the centre of the wheel (63.4 mm) and have any outer diameter of about 148 mm, covering the wheel bolts.

Not sure about the wheel bolts but you have a good chance your OE ones will fit. I had a set of Audi A4/A6 wheels that I used on my Octavia and my Skoda bolts were fine.

For centre caps, prise out the Audi 5 ring logo from the cap, to make it smooth/flat, and then get a self adhesive centre caps of appropriate size/style.

These can be found on ebay or better still have a look at PastyBoy's Group Buy thread as he'll pretty much get caps custom made for you (he did for the centre caps I ran on my Audi wheels and also my current Team Dynamics wheels);- http://www.briskoda....es-group-buy-7/

[bahnstormer vrs]

I run a set of spitzbergs on mine during winter with Dunlop wintersports.

Keeps the OE look.

.... but what do you then do for the summer?

[carisbrook]

.... but what do you then do for the summer?

Factory Annapurna's with Dunlops

[Merlinman]

OE 17's here - Vredestein Wintrac Extreme on second set of Annapurnas - won't be too long now before they come out of 'summer' storage

[Deputy]

Second set of OE 17" Spitzbergs and Vredsteind Wintrac Extremes. I looked at cheaper wheels, then decided I like how the Yeti looks and didn't want nasty, small steel wheels for 5 months of the year up here in Yorkshire! (also saves any sort of insurance hassle).

[vegit8]

In reality you should still inform your insurers that you are running on winter rubber, regardless of the fact that you are using stock rims.

[Deputy]

Hi, I checked with them a few years ago, they didn't car about tyres as long as they meet spec (eg do you tell your insurer if a tyre fitter fits Dunlops not Pirellis etc?) but they did care about wheels.

[Kiwibacon]

Why does your insurance company need to know about winter rubber?

[r999]

In reality you should still inform your insurers that you are running on winter rubber, regardless of the fact that you are using stock rims.

Not true. The majority of insurers belatedly saw sense last autumn and don't want to know if you fit winter tyres.

A better approach is to start here http://www.abi.org.uk/Information/Consumers/General/Winter_Tyres__The_Motor_Insurance_Committment.aspx and check whether your insurer is one of the backward few who still want to be informed (no doubt as an opportunity to flog you something).

And if any insurer should be even more benighted and demand an extra premium for winter tyres, here is a stick to beat them with: http://www.abi.org.uk/Media/Releases/2011/12/ABI_ISSUES_REASSURANCE_TO_MOTORISTS_FITTING_WINTER_TYRES.aspx

You will note that the first of the documents I linked to is due for revision before this winter, so we may see even more progress towards sanity.

[oldstan]

However most on here who have winter tyres fit them on steel (and sometimes a separate set of alloy) wheels. See below.

I'm with Adrian Flux and they were OK when I asked...but my other car is with SAGA - and my recollection is that thay were also OK with them - but they're not on the ABI list

Thursday, 01 December 2011 Ref: 59_11

ABI ISSUES REASSURANCE TO MOTORISTS FITTING WINTER TYRES

The ABI has issued reassurance to motorists that fitting winter tyres should not result in an extra charge on their motor insurance.

Under an ABI commitment ABI member insurers representing 90% of the motor insurance market confirm that they will not charge any additional premium if winter tyres are fitted, provided that the tyres meet, and are fitted in accordance with, the vehicle manufacturers’ specifications and are in a roadworthy condition.

Nick Starling, ABI’s Director of General Insurance, said:

“Insurers do not want to penalise motorists who take steps, like fitting winter tyres, to improve their safety on dangerous winter roads. Last year cold weather came early and there was some uncertainty for customers about the insurance implications of fitting winter tyres. This commitment clarifies the position for motorists.”

While the insurers signed up to the commitment will not charge an additional premium for the fitting of winter tyres, some may require the customer to advise them that these tyres have been fitted. The commitment covers cars used for personal use, under a private or personal use car insurance policy.

The commitment does not cover fitting new wheels. Any motorist who has winter tyres fitted to new wheels should contact their motor insurer for advice.

Edited 24 September, 2012 by oldstan

[Kiwibacon]

If an insurance company isn't okay with you changing tyres, then change companies. Seriously I cannot beleive how much power you guys give your insurance companies.

Likewise for wheels. It doesn't matter a damn if a car is wearing steels or alloys except for theft risk. Unless you've fitted wheels so expensive they need their own insurance then it's not a matter for insurance to interfere with.

[Llanigraham]

It is interesting to note that it appears to be the "cheaper" end of the insurance industry that does not allow the fitment of winter tyres and simpler wheels, without making a charge.

[Kiwibacon]

Can any of them explain what this charge is for? Besides more staff to take all the un-necessary calls.

[Sporky McGuffin]

It's pretty normal for the cheap end of any industry - the initial bid price is low and the profit (which, let's not forget, they need to make to stay in business) is made later on changes and additions - they also have to be more aggressive about avoiding paying out claims.

[oldstan]

Can any of them explain what this charge is for? Besides more staff to take all the un-necessary calls.

It's called an Administration charge. An Administration charge covers things like change of vehicle, change of named drivers, change of address....in fact a change of anything (except underwear).

Seriously I cannot beleive (sic) how much power you guys give your insurance companies........... It's not exactly within the wit of the average man on the Clapham Omnibus to ring up their insurer and say "Look here, I don't like the way you insurance companies are running your ship - here's the way I want you to do it......."

By all means change companies if you don't like the one you're with but you can hardly change the way an entire industry is run by one quick call. You might be able to where you are - but you can't over here.

"It doesn't matter a damn if a car is wearing steels or alloys except for theft risk. Unless you've fitted wheels so expensive they need their own insurance then it's not a matter for insurance to interfere with". ................ That may well be the way YOU see it, but it's not the way insurance companies see it. If you do happen to change your steels for alloys (or vice versa) then if you don't inform them there is always a possibility that they MIGHT use it to refute a claim....It might only rarely be enforced but it's in their small print and you ignore it at your peril. That's not to say that everyone tells their insurer of all minor changes, they don't - but the small print is there for them to use if they choose.

I tend to agree that if you pay enough for your premium then you might not have to pay an Admin charge....based on the knowledge that NFU Mutual don't make an Admin charge BUT, as I might have said before, in my case, their premium was over twice that which I actually paid elsewhere, therefore you could argue it's worth paying any charge that might be applied if you're still in pocket by taking the lower priced policy.

And finally, I'm not convinced that by paying more for your insurance you will automatically be assured of a better claims experience. But it's difficult to be objective on that one as everyone's claim is different and hard rules are difficult to apply. In my opinion, anyway.

Edited 25 September, 2012 by oldstan

[Sporky McGuffin]

And finally, I'm not convinced that by paying more for your insurance you will automatically be assured of a better claims experience. But it's difficult to be objective on that one as everyone's claim is different and hard rules are difficult to apply. In my opinion, anyway.

Indeed - I didn't mean it as a direct correlation. But I do suspect it's generally true across any representative sample of claims.

[oldstan]

Indeed - I didn't mean it as a direct correlation. But I do suspect it's generally true across any representative sample of claims.

And you may well be right...common sense dictates that you would be.....but I would genuinely be interested to know if you have actual information to confirm your suspicions as I always shop around and use a mixture of price combined with other, not necessarily entirely conclusive, rationale - for example whether they have done well in Customer Satisfaction surveys - or whether I feel I can trust them from past 'Customer Service' experience (which need not count for anything) - or, indeed, whether I've actually heard of them. Nothing very scientific. If I actually knew that by paying a bit more i would be assured of a better claims experience I'd have something to go on...but I see good and bad reports of virtually all insurers - both the cheaper and at the more expensive ones, hence my uncertainty.

[Kiwibacon]

In my country an insurer cannot decline a claim for anything that isn't directly related.

If I had mirror tinted my windscreen (intentional unroadworthy modification) and had an accident, they could decline that. If I lost my license through too many speeding fines and had an accident, they would decline that.

If someone pulled out in front of me and I had steel instead of alloy wheels fitted (or vice versa) they could not use that to decline a claim as it has no contribution to the accident. They couldn't even decline a claim for an accident caused by a space-saver wheel as long as the space-saver is being used in accordance with the instructions (max 80km/h etc).

By letting your insurance company dictate that they want more money (especially as an administrative fee) for you to call up and inform them of something completely irrelevant, you are encouraging this behaviour. Asking to be rogered.

Are you saying your insurance company will charge you for calling up and changing any of your details?

[Llanigraham]

By letting your insurance company dictate that they want more money (especially as an administrative fee) for you to call up and inform them of something completely irrelevant, you are encouraging this behaviour. Asking to be rogered.

Are you saying your insurance company will charge you for calling up and changing any of your details?

No, we are not "encouraging this behaviour" because that is the way the Insurance is in the UK, and yes, some companies will make an administration charge if you need to change things, again because that is the way their business works.

What happens in NZ bears no relationship to what happens here!

[Expatman]

I am (currently) insured with AA Insurance. Phoned today to let them know I would be switching to winter tyres at end of October. Rep had no idea what winter tyres were (I had to explain) or whether there would be an additional premium because they were non-standard. Wanted to know 1. Value of wheels. 2 Value of Tyres. 3. Size of tyres including full spec and speed rating. Rep will "put this information in front of underwriters" who will call me to discuss impact on premium! Now this is the AA who are supposed to be knowledgeable about all things motoring and I would have thought that they would at least have briefed their reps about the advantage of Winter tyres.

Policy is due for renewal at end of October so quite likely I will be changing insurance companies.

[oldstan]

"Are you saying your insurance company will charge you for calling up and changing any of your details? "....... I think I answered that one just a short while ago - yes, if you change any of the things I detailed, and a few more if we're going to be absolutely correct, most insurers have the right, in their terms and conditions, to make an 'Administration Charge'. It's in the policy document. You accept it or you don't - your call. Some charge a tenner, some twenty five, some nothing - it's up to them. Some retain the right to charge but don't charge for minor amendments. They also have clauses to charge a cancellation fee. The amount would depend on the length of time left to run. Don't know what you think about that one? As it happens my car insurance has been going down in price in recent years - mainly because of the area I live in and the fact that I shop around and haggle a bit and Insurance Companies want my business - I'm a good, low, risk......if I had a few accidents/claims or my risk category changed in some other way I'd have to pay up but the Admin. Charge is just a way of them clawing back some of the money I saved when I got a low premium. Although no-one likes it - they're there to make money. They're a business, not a charity.

But no-one's holding a gun to your head. You don't have to use any particular company. You can find one that doesn't make an Admin. charge....they do exist....it's just that their premiums are often higher than those that do. Swings and roundabouts. You don't have to run a car at all - it's your choice. In the UK we have to pay VED (Vehicle Excise Duty).... (unless the vehicle is exempt). Are we being rogered for that? Well some might think so but you still have to pay it. Are we "encouraging" the Government by paying VED? Well that's for you to decide but if you don't pay it your vehicle gets towed and you get it back when you've squared up what's owing. If you don't insure the car it gets towed and crushed or sold if you don't pay the release fee and the storage fee and the outstanding duty. Are we "encouraging" the Police and the Licensing Authority by allowing them to to that? Your call again. But it's the reality of motoring here. If you don't like it you either don't tax and insure your car and pay the fines when you get caught......or, like I say, you pay up and look big. You can mitigate the costs by driving a low VED class car (generally smaller/more efficient ones) and by driving low insurance category cars (also generally smaller/safer cars - but there are exceptions, as there always is).

Hope this helps in your assessment of car tax and insurance in the UK. There's lots more but, to be honest, I've said pretty much all I want to say.

"By letting your insurance company dictate that they want more money (especially as an administrative fee) for you to call up and inform them of something completely irrelevant, you are encouraging this behaviour. Asking to be rogered".

See above. Except that that it's not, of course, "irrelevent" to notify them of a change of car, modification to vehicle (wide wheels, different colour, chip the engine), change of additional drivers, change of address, change of occupation (i.e. library assistant to/from pub landlord), change of garaging (i.e. locked garage to/from on-street parking)......the list goes on.....and happens to include, as a rule, a change of wheels (but not necessarily tyres...provided certain conditions are fulfilled). I'm not saying everyone tells them - I'm just saying that the small print says they're supposed to.

Do you not have to tell you insurer of these things?

Edited 25 September, 2012 by oldstan

[r999]

Do you not have to tell you insurer of these things?

The answer to that is not as simple as it might seem.

Insurers can't just impose whatever conditions they want; they must comply with law when they write their contracts. Unfortunately the principal law that governs insurance contracts (including motor insurance) in the UK, the Marine Insurance Act of 1906, is now widely regarded as containing toxic provisions. It is based on the principle of 'utmost good faith' (uberrima fides), one consequence of which is that the insured person has a duty to disclose all material facts to the insurer. One problem with this is that the insured may have to be near-clairvoyant to know everything that the insurer might regard as a material fact. This gives the insurer the power to avoid paying a claim by declaring that they regard some fact as material that was not disclosed, even though the insured had no way of knowing they would regard it as material. There is a great deal more that could be said about this, lots of case law and legal debate over the past 106 years.

However, the 1906 Act does contain an explicit provision that is helpful to the insured as far as disclosure is concerned. If a circumstance lessens the insurer's risk, the insured party cannot be held to have been obliged to disclose it. So if I fit cheap steel wheels instead of my expensive alloys, provided the wheels are sound, I lessen the insurer's risk, and I cannot be held liable to tell the insurer of that fact. This protection, being enshrined in statute, overrides anything that an insurer may write in their contract.

Of course very few people who work for insurers will know any of this - as we have seen, some of them haven't even heard of winter tyres - but if they tried to say you should have told them about putting on steel wheels, a brief letter to their legal department quoting Section 18, clause 3(a) of the 1906 Act would get them off one's back straight away.

Swopping to alloys of the same or higher value and failing to disclose it would not of course give you this statutory protection.

By the way, the law in New Zealand and the other Commonwealth countries also relied heavily on 'utmost good faith' and its implications for the duty to disclose, but different countries have moved slowly away from this problematic principle at different rates. As indeed has the UK to some extent: next year a new law will take effect that will clean up some of the mess: http://www.dolegal.co.uk/cms/document/The_Consumer_Insurance_Act_2012.pdf

[Kiwibacon]

R999, thank you. You've summed it all up brilliantly.

Oldstan. No I don't tell my insurer if I change tyres or wheels as long as those tyres and wheels are within the legal (roadworthy) limits for my vehicles. To date they all have been so no notification was necessary.

If I fitted awful and expensive chromed plated rims and I didn't tell them, then it'd be my loss (not theirs) if the car was jacked up and the wheels stolen.

If I fitted tyres/wheels outside the standard legel limits then I would need the vehicle certified for the change for it to be legal, in which case I would certainly be telling the insurance co. But to pass those limits requires large changes in wheel dia/width, large changes in tyre dia or a completely non standard way of mounting them. All these changes are way outside the scope of changing one set of wheels for a winter set with similar overall dimensions.

None of the other factors you've mentioned are comparable to changing wheels/tyres so I won't bother commenting on them. Same with tax.

[oldstan]

Thank you, R999 and Kiwibacon.

Despite all of the above, Kiwibacon did actually ask, quite pointedly, about the Administration Charge that most insurers apply. I tried, clearly without success, to explain my understanding of them but Kiwibacon seems happy now given R999's insight in to insurance legislation.

In practice and in the terms and conditions within my insurance documents I read that I have to make certain disclosures to my insurer regarding my car and myself and am widely given to understand that if they are not complied with then a claim may be subject to restricted recompense or outright rejection. If I were to call my insurance companies customer Call Centre and quote "the principle of 'utmost good faith' (uberrima fides)", and the "Marine Insurance Act of 1906" then, in the first instance I suspect the conversation would not go well. In practice I generally pay my insurance premium (which I don't especially begrudge as I pay around £150 for each of my cars...a Yeti and a Hyundai i10) and agree to tell them of any changes that may occur.

I'm sorry, Kiwibacon that I rambled on giving incomparable information that you had no need to bother commenting on. I'll not spend any more time on this and am sorry to have taken your time unnecessarily.

[riocca]

My insurance company Hastings said that as long as any tyres fitted were to manufacturers specification (and legal of course) then there was no need to inform them.

As it happens my winters are Continental TS830P 225/50 R 17's on a spare set of Spitzberg Alloys a found on Ebay brand new for £225 - and surprisingly I was the only bidder!!! Originally I had done a deal with my local dealer to swap the tyres when required at £20+VAT for the set which I thought was good they also sold me the tyres, which were in stock last November, at £100 less than KwikFit were quoting. Was very impressed with both the grip and wear from the tyres last year even though the winter was not too bad.

Edited 26 September, 2012 by riocca