Next car? Faster and Cheaper?
in [Tuning]
|
From: Clive George on 12 Jul 2010 19:30 On 13/07/2010 00:20, JackH wrote: >> Otherwise insurance would be cheaper with a re-map. > > As I've pointed out several times, (and getting to the original > point), we've not really seen reports of bods being prosecuted on the > strength of driving uninsured due to an undeclared map - I'd be more > than happy to look at any links you can provide to the contrary and > I've outlined elsewhere why I believe we'd be seeing reports this > nature if it was happening. Isn't this addressing two different questions? Insurance being more expensive with a remap indicates the insurance companies think you're more likely to make a claim, and they've got the data to base that on - claims data for cars with and without declared maps. (Of course it could also mean they see you as a soft touch :-) ). The stuff you're talking about seems to be about the chances of getting caught not declaring it, which is rather different.
From: Douglas Payne on 12 Jul 2010 19:44 JackH wrote: > On Jul 12, 11:59 pm, Douglas Payne <doug...(a)cheerful.com> wrote: >> JackH wrote: >>> On Jul 12, 11:34 pm, Douglas Payne <doug...(a)cheerful.com> wrote: >>>> JackH wrote: >>>>> On Jul 11, 11:47 pm, Douglas Payne <doug...(a)cheerful.com> wrote: >>>>>> JackH wrote: >>>>>>> (1) At this juncture, it might be helpful if you come up with some >>>>>>> proven stats that back your statement up in terms of the figurework >>>>>>> therein, rather than apparently stating an opinion as fact. >>>>>> What about if I just say that I am apparently erroneously stating >>>>>> opinion as fact? >>>>> Well I'd then be inclined to reflect on the sad state of the world >>>>> today in relation to how the more easily led will swallow a load of >>>>> opinionated waffle stated in the stylee of fact and then go on to form >>>>> opinions, correct or otherwise, about something they have no real >>>>> knowledge of other than 'I read it on Usenet / was fed some propaganda >>>>> drawn from skewed statistics by the media... and it therefore must be >>>>> true'. >>>> Yebbut, I told the OP not to do that earlier in the thread so its OK >>>> this time. >>> And the reasoning for telling them not to do it, unless I'm mistaken, >>> then eventually led to your earth shattering, if not entirely proven >>> to be correct, statistical 'anal-ysis' on the ratio of those with to >>> those without in terms of the chances 'one will get oneself into a bit >>> of a pickle'... or something. >> Yes. > > So aside from the fact your stats were built on a foundation of > 'figures drawn from thin air'... and were therefore a 'load of > unsubstantiated bollocks'... Sorry, I think there has been a misunderstanding. I am making the point that if you declare a re-map, your insurance will go up and that there is a reason for this - increased risk. I don't think you are disagreeing with me. >> Otherwise insurance would be cheaper with a re-map. > > As I've pointed out several times, (and getting to the original > point), we've not really seen reports of bods being prosecuted on the > strength of driving uninsured due to an undeclared map - I'd be more > than happy to look at any links you can provide to the contrary and > I've outlined elsewhere why I believe we'd be seeing reports this > nature if it was happening. I am not talking about insurance companies dodging claims or getting busted for being uninsured and I never have been. Reading back through my posts, I am not sure how I gave that impression. -- Douglas
From: JackH on 12 Jul 2010 19:58 On Jul 13, 12:30 am, Clive George <cl...(a)xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote: > On 13/07/2010 00:20, JackH wrote: > > >> Otherwise insurance would be cheaper with a re-map. > > > As I've pointed out several times, (and getting to the original > > point), we've not really seen reports of bods being prosecuted on the > > strength of driving uninsured due to an undeclared map - I'd be more > > than happy to look at any links you can provide to the contrary and > > I've outlined elsewhere why I believe we'd be seeing reports this > > nature if it was happening. > > Isn't this addressing two different questions? Insurance being more > expensive with a remap indicates the insurance companies think you're > more likely to make a claim, and they've got the data to base that on - > claims data for cars with and without declared maps. (Of course it could > also mean they see you as a soft touch :-) ). *ding* I reckon getting a quote on a standard TT 225 and then a modified 150bhp 'mapped' to 225bhp, would reveal a lot on this. And you've just spelt out one of the main things I've been getting at - they've no idea how many people are running maps... and I suspect they're a bit thin on stats that actually prove any extra power available got you into a position you'd have otherwise avoided in something that was standard, is the point. As ever, to a degree, it's propaganda being used to make money. > The stuff you're talking about seems to be about the chances of getting caught not declaring > it, which is rather different. It's all linked... in terms of this particular debate, anyway. :-) -- JackH
From: Elder on 15 Jul 2010 03:41 In article <i1jujm$hhn$1(a)heffalump.dur.ac.uk>, a.k.kirby(a)durham.ac.uk says... > Some of the tuning houses offer to keep your original map on record in > case you want to revert, so it would appear that you can read a map out > of the ECU... > Some of the Saab tuning options these days are a tuning dongle that is pre-programmed with the map options you have bought. When you flash the new map, it will store the original on the dongle along with the new one, so you as user can reflash it back any time you want. Not sure if it is Speedparts or BSR, but one of the two as part of their "staged" tuning options along with exhaust/filter/turbo/intercooler options, pick a tuning stage, and you get what ever hardware it contains, plus the flashing dongle designed to take that hardware into account and add power/torque/economy above the factory play safe levels. -- Carl Robson Get cashback on your purchases Topcashback http://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/skraggy_uk/ref/index.htm Greasypalm http://www.greasypalm.co.uk/r/?l=1006553
From: Fraser Johnston on 15 Jul 2010 22:49
"Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:89vsc1Fp0sU1(a)mid.individual.net... > JackH <jackhackettuk(a)yahoo.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they > were saying: > >>> >> Extra power is nice don't get me wrong, and you are right, there are >>> >> idiots about, but avoiding situations where hard braking or extra >>> >> power might be needed isn't difficult. > >>> >> For every 1 person who avoids a situation, more than 1 person with >>> >> the same mod ends up in a situation they wouldn't have otherwise >>> >> managed. > >>> > And you know this for sure (1) because...? > >>> ...Because declaring the re-map increases one's premium. > >> Yes, and that means your statement above is factually correct in terms >> of the figurework because... (1) > >> (1) At this juncture, it might be helpful if you come up with some >> proven stats that back your statement up in terms of the figurework >> therein, rather than apparently stating an opinion as fact. > > Do you know what an actuary does? They are a bookie that went to uni. Fraser |