Remapping and insurance?

Seth Brundle · 30-06-2016 08:37PM

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I never said you were wrong about your claim.

I meant about the genuine claim being rare.

Special Circumstances · 30-06-2016 09:42PM

kbannon wrote: »

I meant about the genuine claim being rare.

"The majority must suffer so that the minority of scammers still receive money, but not as much." Apparently.

At least you weren't in Germany, €600 "grand total" cost for whiplash like. Definitely no other costs associated. And any (in)decent insurer would claw that back off you through some loading in no time.
Or perhaps a misrepresentation of facts and figures, and that 600 is a component of a total package.
Common sense should indicate the correct interpretation of that figure that gets bandied about.

Henry Ford III · 01-07-2016 02:12PM

conzy wrote: »

Its a grey area. Where do they draw the line.

I had a 325i with no backbox and it had a K&N panel filter. Is that modified enough to void insurance.

An RX8 with after market coils and leads for longevity not performance and a decat ( the OEM ones block) is that enough to void insurance.

I would feel pretty hard done by if either of those cars was in an accident and insurance wouldn't pay out. At the same time if someone has an evo or some other jap scrap with double the advertised HP and they wrap it should insurance pay out?

I don't think it's a grey area at all.

It's all to do with "materiality" and what would a reasonable underwriter say in the circumstances.

If the exhaust and air filter change the performance in any way then it's relevant and needs to be disclosed.

If someone fits fancy alloys or a valuable head unit that might make the car a more attractive one to a potential thief then that's relevant too.

There's no point in calling an insurer. Communicate in writing/email because you might need to rely on the reply you're given.

Special Circumstances · 01-07-2016 02:20PM

Henry Ford III wrote: »

I don't think it's a grey area at all.

It's all to do with "materiality" and what would a reasonable underwriter say in the circumstances.

If the exhaust and air filter change the performance in any way then it's relevant and needs to be disclosed.

If someone fits fancy alloys or a valuable head unit that might make the car a more attractive one to a potential thief then that's relevant too.

There's no point in calling an insurer. Communicate in writing/email because you might need to rely on the reply you're given.

Has anyone heard of a case of a dpf gerrymandering resulting in insurance being void? If not, why not...

I suspect that insurers are just making it up as they go along, or are extemely inconsistent, and as such there IS a grey area about what is acceptable or not acceptable. "Remap? She grand if she diesel lad"

dr.fuzzenstein · 01-07-2016 02:22PM

Special Circumstances wrote: »

"The majority must suffer so that the minority of scammers still receive money, but not as much." Apparently.

At least you weren't in Germany, €600 "grand total" cost for whiplash like. Definitely no other costs associated. And any (in)decent insurer would claw that back off you through some loading in no time.
Or perhaps a misrepresentation of facts and figures, and that 600 is a component of a total package.
Common sense should indicate the correct interpretation of that figure that gets bandied about.

So how come I can get an insurance quote (3rd party) of about 500 from any German website for 1994 BMW 325i? And how come that if I wanted to insure the same car here it would spark a crisis meeting of the heads of the Irish insurance federation resulting in a 2 week summit before being quoted the GDP of Ecuador?
600 is correct for whiplash as we understand it here, bit of a sore neck for 2 weeks and its only right. People who have real, actual damage do get more money. And its only fair. But paying people 15k for "oh my neck hurts a bit" is retarded and only a moron would defend it.

Special Circumstances · 01-07-2016 02:29PM

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

600 is correct for whiplash as we understand it here, bit of a sore neck for 2 weeks and its only right. People who have real, actual damage do get more money.

Grand righty of so. Whiplash is not a real injury. There's absolutely no way that sudden unexpected acceleration applied to a species with an abnormally skewed skull size/weight versus neck thickness/strength could result in damage. Good one doc!

ironclaw · 01-07-2016 02:30PM

Special Circumstances wrote: »

I suspect that insurers are just making it up as they go along, or are extemely inconsistent, and as such there IS a grey area about what is acceptable or not acceptable. "Remap? She grand if she diesel lad"

I had a think about this diesel / petrol and the only reason I can come up with is that remapping diesels is either 1) Less prevalent or 2) Less likely to be involved in an accident versus a petrol remapped car.

Remember, its based on a huge mathematical model, not your exact car or circumstance. Sure, you can take a 535D to 400bhp or more, but the M3 is statistically more likely be involved in a collision, and more so if remap e.g. They have more remapped M3 crashes on the books than 535Ds as the 535Ds on the whole are probably owned by older, more mature owners (As an abstract example)

Its not really inconsistency, its just down to statistical chance.

grogi · 01-07-2016 02:35PM

ironclaw wrote: »

Its not really inconsistency, its just down to statistical chance.

That model is simply to simple...

Remapping a 1.2TSI brings it into 1.4TSI territory...
Remapped 1.2 bad... Factory 1.4 - good...

When 23 year old Olympic boxer is remapping it's bi-turbo diesel - that's ok.
Me 35 year-old-father-of-three remapping a poor-spec octavia from 85PS to 110-ish so I can climb a hill - not so...

ironclaw · 01-07-2016 02:41PM

grogi wrote: »

That model is simply to simple...

Remapping a 1.2TSI brings it into 1.4TSI territory...
Remapped 1.2 bad... Factory 1.4 - good...

When 23 year old Olympic boxer is remapping it's bi-turbo diesel - that's ok.
Me 35 year-old-father-of-three remapping a poor-spec octavia from 85PS to 110-ish so I can climb a hill - not so...

Statistically that's a false comparison.

Is an F1 car the same as an F3 car if you remap the block of the F3 car to F1 spec? No, its not. Likewise, you have a collection of statistics for F1, they are not directly applicable to F3.

You are making the mistake of focusing on one aspect, the power, of the car. But insurance looks at the entire model e.g. What are the chances of a 2.0 520D that mainly resides in Dublin being driving by a 23 year old from being involved in an accident? That might encompass 1000 samples. You can't now say that the same sample and result is valid for a 518D that has been mapped to the same power of a 520D. That's a false comparison in terms of probability and statistics.

grogi · 01-07-2016 02:56PM

ironclaw wrote: »

That might encompass 1000 samples. You can't now say that the same sample and result is valid for a 518D that has been mapped to the same power of a 520D. That's a false comparison in terms of probability and statistics.

I get that - it is profiling the driver based on a very limited information...
I just feel this is just stupid blanket policy, nothing more.

Similarly I could not insure my house for flooding because of it's location. It is on a bloody hill, 30m above any highest water the area have seen... But it's Cork - so no coverage...

Special Circumstances · 01-07-2016 03:42PM

ironclaw wrote: »

I had a think about this diesel / petrol and the only reason I can come up with is that remapping diesels is either 1) Less prevalent or 2) Less likely to be involved in an accident versus a petrol remapped car.

Remember, its based on a huge mathematical model, not your exact car or circumstance. Sure, you can take a 535D to 400bhp or more, but the M3 is statistically more likely be involved in a collision, and more so if remap e.g. They have more remapped M3 crashes on the books than 535Ds as the 535Ds on the whole are probably owned by older, more mature owners (As an abstract example)

Its not really inconsistency, its just down to statistical chance.

A lot of "ifs" and assumptions there ironclaw - I've come to expect better from you!

millington · 01-07-2016 04:38PM

I highly doubt any insurance company will ever check an ECU for a remap. I've never seen it happen nor have I ever heard of it happening. Just map it and say nothing. Even if something did happen, and in the 1 in 99999 chance they find out, surely you can say you didn't do it and it must have been done before you bought it.

Disclaimer - post is based on no facts at all and just my not very sensible common sense

Special Circumstances · 01-07-2016 04:55PM

millington wrote: »

I highly doubt any insurance company will ever check an ECU for a remap. I've never seen it happen nor have I ever heard of it happening. Just map it and say nothing. Even if something did happen, and in the 1 in 99999 chance they find out, surely you can say you didn't do it and it must have been done before you bought it.

Disclaimer - post is based on no facts at all and just my not very sensible common sense

It's not impossible, it just seems unlikely that they would have some guaranteed correct master database of the checksums for every possible image for every possible variant of ECU.
Maybe they only need a few to cover a good chunk of the market.

03-07-2016 12:41PM

I'd guess that whether or not they'd check would heavily depend on the circumstances and car.

ie if I remapped the C5 and sideswiped someone at 50kmh turning into my road, as it's effectively a family car with a 'normal' crash and a 28 uear old driver they'd probably not care to check.

A boy racer mobile (whatever qualifies for that these days, older passats and golf's it'd seem?) in a crash causing enough damage as to give the impression it was speeding, with a 20 year old driver, is probably more likely to be looked at.

I just wouldn't remap as I'm lead to believe it causes more smoke from the car, can be harder wearing on the components and if a mechanic wires it up to a diagnostics machine they can accidentally wipe the remap quite easily?

if it weren't for those issues of have done it ages ago. I'm no boy racer but I do miss the acceleration of the 2ltr 407 I had and would like to regain it again. (I know a remap wouldn't fully get me there but anythings better than nothing).

Henry Ford III · 03-07-2016 02:07PM

millington wrote: »

I highly doubt any insurance company will ever check an ECU for a remap. I've never seen it happen nor have I ever heard of it happening. Just map it and say nothing. Even if something did happen, and in the 1 in 99999 chance they find out, surely you can say you didn't do it and it must have been done before you bought it.

Disclaimer - post is based on no facts at all and just my not very sensible common sense

No common sense in that I'm afraid.

"Map it and say nothing" is a really silly idea. By doing so you'd deliberately risk your cover being voided.

tossy · 03-07-2016 03:15PM

edit: wrong thread lol

03-07-2016 09:24PM

In the case of the insurance company voiding things.. Don't they have a requirement to demonstrate that the reason they're not standing by you is a valid reason and is connected to the issue.

In other words, if you crash and have a remap, or tinted windows, or no NCT, etc. if they try to use one of those reasons as an excuse not to cover you, don't they have to show that the reason they're not standing over you contributed to the accident or made it worse?

ie; they can't say 'you've got window tints, we're not covering you' unless they can demonstrate that the tints actually contributed to the crash. So if you have your side windows at 100% blackout tint and can see nothing, but you rear end someone in traffic, they have to cover it as the window tints made no difference and their presence didn't cause the accident.

Or am i making that up? I'm fairly sure that's how it works?

grogi · 03-07-2016 09:32PM

Deleted User wrote: »

In the case of the insurance company voiding things.. Don't they have a requirement to demonstrate that the reason they're not standing by you is a valid reason and is connected to the issue.

In other words, if you crash and have a remap, or tinted windows, or no NCT, etc. if they try to use one of those reasons as an excuse not to cover you, don't they have to show that the reason they're not standing over you contributed to the accident or made it worse?

ie; they can't say 'you've got window tints, we're not covering you' unless they can demonstrate that the tints actually contributed to the crash. So if you have your side windows at 100% blackout tint and can see nothing, but you rear end someone in traffic, they have to cover it as the window tints made no difference and their presence didn't cause the accident.

Or am i making that up? I'm fairly sure that's how it works?

Third party loses will be paid. Maybe even your losses will be covered too.

However the policy will be cancelled immediately due to non disclosure. That's like a motoring death-sentence.

JoeA3 · 03-07-2016 09:36PM

Some people are watching too much CSI. The chances of (a) an insurance assessor investigating your car's ECU (b) knowing what to look for and (c) proving you even knew the map was there is somewhere between slim and absolutely none imo.

In my experience the assessors don't even bother to do the basics of their job, never mind going all CSI and examining ECU's! Hence we have situations in body shops all over the country where minor-ish crash damage is jacked up into thousands as its an "insurance job".... And it's part of the reason of course that we're all paying silly premiums.

millington · 04-07-2016 10:26AM

Henry Ford III wrote: »

No common sense in that I'm afraid.

"Map it and say nothing" is a really silly idea. By doing so you'd deliberately risk your cover being voided.

Clearly the common sense bit was a joke.

Yes you do risk it but how would the insurance company know it's been mapped?

JoeA3 wrote: »

Some people are watching too much CSI. The chances of (a) an insurance assessor investigating your car's ECU (b) knowing what to look for and (c) proving you even knew the map was there is somewhere between slim and absolutely none imo.

In my experience the assessors don't even bother to do the basics of their job, never mind going all CSI and examining ECU's! Hence we have situations in body shops all over the country where minor-ish crash damage is jacked up into thousands as its an "insurance job".... And it's part of the reason of course that we're all paying silly premiums.

Exactly. I seen a bumper scratch lately cost €864 to the insurance company. It's wild.

JoeA3 · 04-07-2016 12:01PM

millington wrote: »

Clearly the common sense bit was a joke.

Yes you do risk it but how would the insurance company know it's been mapped?

I'm more than confident that they wouldn't. A main dealer with all the correct diagnostic equipment would be very hard pressed to know in my experience, never mind some young fella that Chill.ie send out to look into your engine bay :pac:

If you're an otherwise "low risk" customer, then I would say you've even less to worry about - i.e. a relatively good car that's worth a few quid, no silly cosmetic "RS4 TDI" modifications, you're not 18-19 years old, etc, etc. Those are the things that would raise red flags far quicker than any supposed map.

millington · 04-07-2016 12:18PM

JoeA3 wrote: »

I'm more than confident that they wouldn't. A main dealer with all the correct diagnostic equipment would be very hard pressed to know in my experience, never mind some young fella that Chill.ie send out to look into your engine bay :pac:

If you're an otherwise "low risk" customer, then I would say you've even less to worry about - i.e. a relatively good car that's worth a few quid, no silly cosmetic "RS4 TDI" modifications, you're not 18-19 years old, etc, etc. Those are the things that would raise red flags far quicker than any supposed map.

I agree. In the real world nothing would happen. On paper/law/boards.ie you will go to jail for 25 to life

Henry Ford III · 04-07-2016 01:21PM

millington wrote: »

Clearly the common sense bit was a joke.

Yes you do risk it but how would the insurance company know it's been mapped?

They won't unless you or somebody tells them or they find out somehow.

If they go "full bore" after a dubious claim they have all the resources they'll need.

shietpilot · 04-07-2016 02:16PM

Well considering that there is around 35 different ECU calibrations released for a Mk2 Focus with a 1.8 TDCI, you would need to be fairly specialised at reading ECUs and comparing the maps between each one. This is just for one model of car with 1 of many other engine possibilities.

If you account for the different engines, different ECU models fitted to later year models and thousands of different makes and models I don't think you'll find anyone who has every single one available to compare.

JoeA3 · 04-07-2016 03:47PM

shietpilot wrote: »

Well considering that there is around 35 different ECU calibrations released for a Mk2 Focus with a 1.8 TDCI, you would need to be fairly specialised at reading ECUs and comparing the maps between each one. This is just for one model of car with 1 of many other engine possibilities.

If you account for the different engines, different ECU models fitted to later year models and thousands of different makes and models I don't think you'll find anyone who has every single one available to compare.

That's a very good point. I brought my old MK6 GTD to a well known and highly regarded tuner several years ago. After several trial and error attempts, he could not apply a map to the car. The factory map on the ECU was completely different to those on the ECU's in several other MK6 GTD's he'd already worked on...

Henry Ford III · 04-07-2016 05:40PM

shietpilot wrote: »

Well considering that there is around 35 different ECU calibrations released for a Mk2 Focus with a 1.8 TDCI, you would need to be fairly specialised at reading ECUs and comparing the maps between each one. This is just for one model of car with 1 of many other engine possibilities.

If you account for the different engines, different ECU models fitted to later year models and thousands of different makes and models I don't think you'll find anyone who has every single one available to compare.

Using guesswork as a basis for anything important can't be a good idea.

Rattlehead_ie · 01-04-2017 12:27PM

Hey guys, sry to resurrect oldish thread, but was relevent
Was just onto my insurer with reference to getting my diesel ST remapped. Needs to go to underwriters that aren't available on Saturdays.
But with FBD, So here is hoping they take the same attitude as some of the earlier posters mentioned "its a diesel so should be fine"

bazz26 · 01-04-2017 02:08PM

Given that they are loading policies left right and centre these days, I'd expect this response when asked about tuning:

4363d97ae3de7fb876180a9bff317a75_laughing-crazy-gif-crazy-gif_414-322.gif

4363d97ae3de7fb876180a9bff317a75_laughing-crazy-gif-crazy-gif_414-322.gif

ironclaw · 01-04-2017 03:51PM

Rattlehead_ie wrote: »

Hey guys, sry to resurrect oldish thread, but was relevent
Was just onto my insurer with reference to getting my diesel ST remapped. Needs to go to underwriters that aren't available on Saturdays.
But with FBD, So here is hoping they take the same attitude as some of the earlier posters mentioned "its a diesel so should be fine"

Just to brace you, FBD are very anti-performance. They pretty much won't insure anything over 2L unless its a jeep or agricultural. At least that was my experience.

grogi · 02-04-2017 08:46AM

bazz26 wrote: »

Given that they are loading policies left right and centre these days, I'd expect this response when asked about tuning /../

For the insurer the issue with remapping is not the car itself, but the owner that thinks about remapping.

Remapping and insurance?

Comments