Non Run Flats, Warranty & Insurance

[Avtar]

Guys

Tyres are coming close to 3MM mark, so like others I am looking to come of the Bridgestone Run Flats and have been socuring for prices on Non Run Flats and it seems that the only BMW approved non run flats are the Michellins, there are also some by Bridgestones which are cheaper that teh Michellins but do not have teh BMW approved 'star' symbol.

My query is has anyone had experience of warranty issues with regards to having on OEM tyres and has anyone fitted the non BMW approved non run flats. Also do you have to inform your insurance company?

Thanks

[X5Sport]

The only advice I can offer was around Winter Tyres and the Dealer insisted that I had to use 'tyres as approved by the manufacturer' or there might be warranty issues.  I can understand it from a warranty angle as manufacturers will use every excuse they can think of to get out of paying, but once the warranty is up then it's your car, your call.

The insurance company insisted that for their purposes the car had to be fitted with tyres 'as offered by the OEM as standard on the car' or they would be considered as a mod.  How this sort of thing is going to play out in the future is anyone's guess. 

I'm thinking the same, though my tyres probably won't need replacing until the three years are up, but I will get an extended warranty (one gearbox failure is enough thanks  ) so may have to be asking the same questions.

The EU are currently looking at bringing in a regulation in October this year that says ANY part fitted to a car which does not comply with the OEM standard could require the car to need an SVA Test!!  Complete bl@@dy madness if it goes through 'as is' as it is designed to stop illegal or sub-standard parts being used but as currently worded could affect everything - not what it's intended to do, but a consequential and undesired effect.  The MOT is to be further 'toughened' to take the new regs into account.

IMHO if the tyre manufacturer publicly states it's approved to a standard that meets what is needed on the car you wish to use it on, and is 'E' approved, then it's 100% OK.  All you can do is ask BMW I guess.

[Avtar]

The dealer has said they will not deal with any claims that may be the result of NON Run Flat tyres (even BMW approved). I have the BMW extended warranty and when I contacted them on the matter they were useless and did not have a clue. i have not spoken to my insurance company yet which is Admiral.

It seems the easiest solution is to stay with Run Flats, which i understand are better that they used to be but it does seem ridiculous does it not?

[Avtar]

Suppose i could keep my run flats and put them back on if there are any issues?

[X5Sport]

I think the way things are going is that only factory fitted anything can be used.  The whole thng is rapidly becoming a farce, and could lead to job losses as suppliers find that they are effectively 'locked out' of the market.

It sure as hell isn't going to help the motorist keep costs down without compromising safety.  >:(

[Avtar]

Do you have thoughts/opinions on the run flats available today as of those three/four years ago?

[leosayer]

In my experience on the X5 (2010 30d SE without adaptive drive), the ride is massively improved by ditching the run flats.

I can't see how BMW could wriggle out of their warranty commitment because you've not fitted run-flats. I'm also not sure how the use of 'normal' tyres could be the cause of any component failure.

As for insurance, read their terms and conditions. In general, the car must be kept in roadworthy condition. I'm not sure how a non-run flat (in the correct size, load index, speed rating etc.) could reasonably be classed a modification.

[Avtar]

[quote="leosayer"]
In my experience on the X5 (2010 30d SE without adaptive drive), the ride is massively improved by ditching the run flats.

I can't see how BMW could wriggle out of their warranty commitment because you've not fitted run-flats. I'm also not sure how the use of 'normal' tyres could be the cause of any component failure.

As for insurance, read their terms and conditions. In general, the car must be kept in roadworthy condition. I'm not sure how a non-run flat (in the correct size, load index, speed rating etc.) could reasonably be classed a modification.
[/quote]

All good valid points sir..........!

[X5Sport]

The reason it counts as a modification is because the vehicle was type approved with runflats and therefore changing to non-RFT tyres changes the vehicle away from the way it was 'as approved'.  It's the type approval variation that is the issue here.

The Manufacturers warranty is only valid as long as the car is fitted with all the correct parts - as type approved, and the insurers use the same trick and so can charge you for a modification because the vehicle is no longer standard when compared against what BMW (or any other manufacturer) have stated the car would be equipped with from the factory and how it was submitted for its type certification.

It's an absolute nightmare, and is going to get worse.

Honda used to play the same game with tyres for their motorbikes.  The only 'approved' certain tyres for my VFR800 VTEC and they were the only tyres that could be used and stay within the warranty requirements.  The insurers maintained the same line and this was 10 years ago so it's nothing new, it's just more people have become aware of it.

'Type Approval' affects all sorts of areas - it's why everything has to have a CE mark now.  Off topic I know, but in the early 90's I spent some time approving radio kit for use in the UK and the manufacturer had to provide not only test reports but also detailed photographs & specs of the product.  If we subsequently found the 'approved' product on the market but with modifications (a component changed or no longer used) that weren't declared, we revoked the TA certificate and the equipment was seized.  Manufacturers used to submit 'golden sets' to get through the tests that bore little resemblance internally to the final product you or I could buy.  We rejected all such applications where it was obvious what they were trying to do.

Today it's all about 'product liability' and manufacturers and insurers reducing their risks by wanting to make sure we only do what they are happy to let us do.  Apparently we aren't going to be allowed to make our own decisions for much longer........ It's very depressing and PC gone mad.  Whatever happened to common sense?  :'(

[leosayer]

There is no mention of type approval on the my insurance policy document or on the BMW new car warranty.
However there is no reason not to let your insurance company know that you have switched to run flats just in case they consider it a modification.

In the BMW new car warranty the following wording appears relevant:
Your BMW has been designed and built to extremely high standards to achieve optimum performance and economy. Neither, the Manufacturer, BMW Dealer nor any BMW Group company in the UK, can be held responsible for modifications to the vehicle which lead to defects, unless those modifications have been approved by the Manufacturer, the BMW Dealer or any BMW Group company.

[X5Sport]

Sorry, I should have been clearer.  I have never seen it written as 'Type Approval' by the insurer as all cars in use on the UK Roads must be compliant in terms of type approvals anyway by default so I guess it's sort of implied.  What I think the insurers do is look at what the manufacturers say....as per your quoted para ..... and just say "Wot he sez!".  I may of course be completely wrong. :-[

Manufacturers can only offer for sale a product (a car in this case) which has been type approved, and they have to declare what tests were done.  If it was only tested with RFT then it is TA'd for use only with RFT.  Fitting non-RFT means the operator is now running a modified car which may not meet the same performance and safety criteria that it was approved to, and hence isn't 'as Approved'. 

Car manufacturers may also be able to self-certify that the car meets all the standards required, and BMWs warranty para is their 'get out of jail' card for any incident that occurs and something other than their recommended kit is fitted and might be the cause.....even if as so many folks are finding, non-RFT give a better ride.

It's all a big con job anyway.  I think BMW fit RFT's to save the weight of the spare and jack etc and get the emissions down.  All the other stuff in their sales bumf is just spin.

[Finglonga]

I has a 335i e92 with 19" wheels and when I changed to non run flats it transformed the car. Insurance said they will just note it down for information purposes only. However I was told BMW Assist would not recover my car If I was stranded due to a puncture. I just carried a compressor and slime type stuff just in case. A small price to pay for the improved ride and handling (not to mention the cost benefit). Nothing was mentioned about the warranty though.

My X6 will be keeping the run flats for now as it is silky smooth compared to the e92.

[acideraser]

do you know if there are RFT better than the OEM fitted, 2011 production
better in terms of comfort

[leosayer]

Your best bet is searching for tyre tests on the internet where back to back tests are performed by the same people on the same roads in controlled conditions. Without back to back testing, then it's almost impossible to get a reliable objective measure of relative performance.

The main thing that kills ride comfort is unsprung weight and run flats are typically 4-5kg heavier than the non run flat equivalent. Looking for a lighter tyre would be a good starting place.

There aren't that many different makes of tyres for the X5 so a quick google should throw up some examples. Although it's an american site, I find tire rack good for this sort of thing eg:
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/TireSearc ... iameter=19

[acideraser]

Thanks leosayer, will have a look now

in the meantime found this review from fellow X5 drivers
http://www.xoutpost.com/bmw-sav-forums/ ... de-hp.html