So as an industry expert you're saying people can just fit
whatever rated tyres they like and be confident that there
will be no technical reason* not to do it and also no come
back from their insurance if they end up making a claim?
Thanks for clearing that up.
* In case some missed this earlier in the thread:
There suppose there is a reason that the Brera/159 has been spec'd for XL tyres
at 17,18 & 19".
As ever, a smart-alec taking things to extremes
I think if you read back through this thread you will see that I said nothing of the sort.
The point is being missed entirely here.
It is entirely up to the individual what risks they take with the tyres they buy from a safety and also an insurance point of view.
Obviously, if someone were to fit completely the wrong kind of tyre to their vehicle and as a direct result of that were to have an accident and a vehicle assessor working on behalf of the insurance company could 100% prove this, then yes, the policyholder could find his/herself having an issue with cover. Though even then this is not a certainty.
My point was that just because someone were to fit something that is not part of the original vehicle specification (I'm not just talking about tyres here) to their car and not advise their insurance company doesn't automatically mean that if they were to have a claim the insurer would refuse to pay out or that the policy would be voided.
Of course, all changes to the vehicle's standard specification should
be disclosed to insurers, but if someone were not to then it is not always the end of the world.
Not that I would do it, but if I did fit tyres that were of a slightly different (i.e. not vastly different) load rating or size to that which the manufacturers recommended my concern would be more about safety than about insurance, if that makes sense.
To use the terminology used in a previous post, I'm not sure how the vehicle could 'be used not in accordance with the manufacturer specifications' also. It would have to depend on what was being claimed for and what the nature of the non-standard part(s) were.
For example, if you had the wrong tyres on and your car was stolen and recovered, or if you were hit in the rear by another vehicle, or if the car went up in smoke, you wouldn't need to worry about having your cover voided like some people seem to suggest.
On a separate note, those of you that have been charged additional premiums for fitting winter tyres have been had IMO. As I've mentioned before, some insurance companies see the fitting of non-standard parts to a vehicle as a licence to print money and the fitting of correct size/spec tyres that are designed for winter use is just not a valid reason for charging more premium.
At the end of the day the premium charged has to reflect the proportional risk that the policyholder poses to the insurance company. How on earth can they justify that the policyholder poses more of a risk if they have made the car safer? It could be argued possibly that the insurance company could charge more premium if the winter tyres were considerably more valuable than the standard tyres and they had agreed to fully cover them, but even then there would be deductions for wear and tear etc.
If it was me I would have contested the matter at a higher level and wouldn't have paid them a penny more. I personally can't believe that people have been charged more money
I trust that this clears matters up a little.