From: Peter on
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 09:17:24 +0100, Chris Bartram
<news(a)delete-me.piglet-net.net> wrote:

>On 11/07/10 01:24, JackH wrote:
>
>>
>
>
>
>>> I know in quite a few models of cars you have the same basic car, with
>>> the same engine, the only difference is the programming on the chip?
>>
>
>
>There's usually a physical difference too, as JackH has mentioned. For
>example, the 1.4 16V in my better half's Lupo comes in a 75 or 100BHP
>variant: The engines look very similar, but for a start the cams are
>different, as well as the ECU map.
>
>>> I was looking at ecu as being sort of the same deal. You don't physically do
>>> anything to the brains of the car
>>
>You do. You change the instructions in it. If it says 'supply this much
>fuel and this much boost' and you alter that instruction, it's as much
>of a mod as say swapping a carb for a DCOE, but easier.

Does that mean then that putting Shell V Power or similar in your car
instead of regular unleaded is also classed as a modification as this
will give you slightly more bhp due to the higher octane surely?

I hear your points but my view is still that instructions in the brain
are not modifications. Only physical change to the brain is.


From: Clive George on
On 16/07/2010 23:57, Peter wrote:

> I disagree that you "need" insurance.

Boring answer : the law says you need it. If they catch you without it,
it's going to cost you rather too much. Most of us have worked out that
it's worth obeying the law on this one, hopefully not the hard way.

> You do need to make reparations only if you cause damage or injury to
> another party. If you cause death and it was your fault then life in
> prison or capital punishment is fine.

As a moral argument that might hold some water, but there are other
factors in play. Eg can you actually afford the potential damages you
might cause, even just taking property into account? I certainly can't,
and though I've never caused any, I don't want my life to be wrecked
should I do so.

>>> BTW I can think of a number of times when having more power has
>>> prevented an accident and speeding up to get past some obstace or
>>> someone about to do a side swipe has prevented a big accident. I think
>>> it could very well be 50/50 as to whether it is safer to speed up or
>>> slow down and brake hard, it depends on the situation. There are a lot
>>> of idiots on the road though with no awareness and its only people who
>>> have their wits about them who have prevented major accident.
>>
>> 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.
>
> Believe me, I have a number of situations each week where either hard
> braking, speeding up, or changing into an empty lane without traffic
> coming up is essential. I nearly got taken out only two nights ago by
> a white fan that must have been doing 80 in a 50 on the M621 outer
> ring road in Leeds. It was were two single lanes merge into one dual
> carriageway and he just went straight across into the second lane
> without looking at great speed. That time I had to brake heavily
> otherwise I'd of been agonna. He just missed the rear of the car in
> the first lane and the front side of my car in second lane. There have
> been other times were I've been in the second lane or dual carriageway
> or third lane on motorway when I've had to speed up to avoid getting
> side swiped by someone who hasn't seen me. One of the times was a
> Polish Lorry driver pulling into third lane on motorway!!!

Are you fairly young? If things go well, in five years time you'll look
at that and say "how little I knew" :-)

From: Clive George on
On 16/07/2010 23:44, Peter wrote:

>> You do. You change the instructions in it. If it says 'supply this much
>> fuel and this much boost' and you alter that instruction, it's as much
>> of a mod as say swapping a carb for a DCOE, but easier.
>
> Does that mean then that putting Shell V Power or similar in your car
> instead of regular unleaded is also classed as a modification as this
> will give you slightly more bhp due to the higher octane surely?

Does it give you more power, or merely give you that which it was
designed to deliver in the package given to the customer? I'd say the
latter.

> I hear your points but my view is still that instructions in the brain
> are not modifications. Only physical change to the brain is.

Trouble is, your view differs from that of the people who matter.

As JackH says, you can almost certainly get away with it. But don't
pretend to yourself you're doing anything other than that.
From: Adrian on
Peter <inc(a)ztec.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

>>As above, I'd ask the insurance company. You need insurance, so they
>>have you by the balls.

> I disagree that you "need" insurance.
>
> You do need to make reparations only if you cause damage or injury to
> another party. If you cause death and it was your fault then life in
> prison or capital punishment is fine.

Legal necessity aside, how is putting you in prison going to pay for the
adaptations necessary to allow the person you put into a wheelchair to
live their life? Or to pay for the nursing care for the person you turned
into a drooling vegetable? Or to pay for the million quid's worth of
widgets that were ruined in the HGV that you pushed off the road?
From: Chris Bartram on
On 16/07/10 23:44, Peter wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 09:17:24 +0100, Chris Bartram
> <news(a)delete-me.piglet-net.net> wrote:
>
>> On 11/07/10 01:24, JackH wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> I know in quite a few models of cars you have the same basic car, with
>>>> the same engine, the only difference is the programming on the chip?
>>>
>>
>>
>> There's usually a physical difference too, as JackH has mentioned. For
>> example, the 1.4 16V in my better half's Lupo comes in a 75 or 100BHP
>> variant: The engines look very similar, but for a start the cams are
>> different, as well as the ECU map.
>>
>>>> I was looking at ecu as being sort of the same deal. You don't physically do
>>>> anything to the brains of the car
>>>
>> You do. You change the instructions in it. If it says 'supply this much
>> fuel and this much boost' and you alter that instruction, it's as much
>> of a mod as say swapping a carb for a DCOE, but easier.
>
> Does that mean then that putting Shell V Power or similar in your car
> instead of regular unleaded is also classed as a modification as this
> will give you slightly more bhp due to the higher octane surely?
>
> I hear your points but my view is still that instructions in the brain
> are not modifications. Only physical change to the brain is.
>
>
Well, if we take the case of the Lupo I mentioned, it does run better on
super unleaded, but the manufacturer says so in the manual, saying 95
RON is OK but 98 is better, so I'd guess it's part of the standard spec.
Not all cars wll run better on high-octane fuel as the ECU map has to
take account of it. If we're going down that road, how about driving it
on a cool, dampish day!

This does bring up the wider discussion of where to draw the line on
what *does* constitute a modification. Most people would agree that say
fitting a different brand of tyres doesn't (lets say the car leaves the
factory on Dunlop, Conti, or Goodyears, and you fit some pikey
ditchfinders), but that fitting a lower speed rating seems a grey area.
Fitting coilovers is pretty definite, for example.

Insurance companies can be right bastards sometimes though. Personally
I've declared mods (about the only thing was a non-performance carb
change on a Golf).