Mintex 1144 pads road legal?

[Englishmaninwales]

For years I have used Mintex 1144 pads on my standard 2 pot front calipers with cheapies on the rear. Recently I bought a new set.

However I have never seen the warning on this set of 1144s before -''This material must not be used on public highways.''

Hmmm....Fitting these - does this invalidate my insurance? (There are identifying part numbers on the pad metal backing too).

Deviating from standard equipment as fitted by the manufacturer, I suppose.

Malcolm

 

 

[David Lynch]

Malcolm, think it's all to do with this. ECE R90

When was your car originally built, if Pre 1999 believe it's no (legal) problem. I could see an issue with some race specific pads not working cold, or cheap imports with unknown friction material being well below 85% of OEM performance.

 

A particularly callous insurance assessor could in theory say brakes were not to standard just as if you put W rather than OEM spec V rated tyres on or (going the other way) ran winter tyres (But good case if ran H).

 

I'm very happy if 1144's are >115% 😬 and TMD/Mintex test theirs way beyond what ECE R90 asks Reminds me I need to get in touch with them regards an experiment at their test track near Sherburn in Elmet

 

Out of interest what is the full coding on the Pad backing ?

[Roger Ford]

Is that the only thing that's non-standard on your car?

 

What does your policy say?

 

Having a non-road-legal part on your car doesn't automatically "invalidate" your insurance. In fact very few things do. But if there's something to that effect in your policy, you might find they're entitled not to pay you out, or to reclaim the costs of third party claims from you. I suspect they'd have to demonstrate that the accident was related to the brakes in some way, though.

[Mark Durrant]

I think the bigger risk is the old nut connected to the steering wheel....Malcolm 😬

[Englishmaninwales]

Very few items on the my car deviate away from standard or CC approved upgrades relating to steering or suspension, and the braking system is 100% standard with the exception of the front pads.

 

The difference here is that there is a specific statement by Mintex on their product (albeit due to ECE R90).

 

As David says a sharp eyed investigator (insurance or police) might take issue. Maybe depending on how big the claim or disaster is.

 

David, the detail on the pads is 10075437 MGB533 M1144 Mintex Racing.

 

....And Ray, you already know how well (not) my brakes work on wet grass

[Roger Ford]

I repeat - what does your policy say?

 

Nobody here knows what your policy states in relation to non-standard or non-road-legal parts. There is no "automatic" exclusion of non-legal parts in insurance, unless the policy says so. If it says, for example, that the vehicle "must be in full conformance with construction and use regulations" then you might not be covered. However, if it says it must be "well maintained and suitable for the purpose it is being used" then you probably are.

[Englishmaninwales]

Quoting Roger Ford: 

I repeat - what does your policy say?

 

Thank you, Roger, I did see your comment . Well of course I intend to look at it, it's just that at this moment in time I am unable to do so. I was, however,just looking for some opinion, which you and David have kindly provided.

 

[RossCarmichael]

So, if I read this correctly, if they are more than a 15% improvement in performance then they fail this regulation, is that correct?

[Roger Ford]

There's maybe some logic there. If Joe Punter replaces only his front or rear pads with significantly better ones, it might upset the balance of the car. Might also affect stability control programmes as well (though I would think they're more concerned with relative wheel speeds than the amount of effort applied to the brakes).

[virden]

Re Roger's point, I do not know if this covers it, but Frank Pickles asked me specifically if the car had been modified in any way. I said no, but I do have Mintex pads. Am I right or wrong?

[Jonathan Kay]

*arrowup*I'd discuss it with the insurer.

 

Jonathan

[RS2000]

Quoting virden: 

Frank Pickles asked me specifically if the car had been modified in any way

I believe we will all have been asked this question when applying for or renewing insurance, whether that is by someone verbally asking or by ticking 'No' (or yes) to a 'written' question. I know what changes I have made to my 7, for example I have uprated headlight bulbs, I have fitted a 12v socket, I have put a heat shield covering the solenoid, I have better reflectors in my rear lights, I've got a big yellow splat on the nosecone! Does anyone declare such mods? - the answer is we should and let the insurers decide if they are relevant. Would they have an impact if I didn't declare them and then had an accident - unlikely, but then who knows...?

[LawrenceR]

Found this whist searching

[RS2000]

Interesting....

[7 wonders of the world]

Very good article

[7 wonders of the world]

I find it interesting that the focus here is on the performance if the friction material either way of the OE spec as this may adverly affect the stability of the vehicle under certain conditions.

 

However to my knowledge there is no legislation along a similar line regarding tyre size, manufacture, compound, pressure, tread design speed rating etc etc which will have more of an impact, along with many other components frequently changed springs dampers bushes etc - the list goes on.

 

You could even argue that in standard format from CC the brake balance is sub optimal and many upgrades are in effect merely correcting this.

 

 

Has Euro big brother just gone mad

[Jonathan Kay]

Please could an expert advise:

 

What do those EU regulations regulate? Is it any or all of:

* Sale of goods. (I guess "Yes".)

* What you fit to your car/ Constructions and Use. (I guess "No".)

* Your contract with your insurers for using your car on the road. (I'd guess "Depends on the contract", and/or something to do with custom and practice.)

 

Jonathan

 

PS: Should there be regulations on the fitness of cars to be on the road? I think there should be for the car immediately behind me, and that means for every car. What level should they should work at? Ideally worldwide but that probably isn't achievable. EU seems a pragmatic level and EU usually coordinates with lots of other jurisdictions. But I guess this is a single-market issue anyway.

[andy couchman]

Personally I provide my insurer with a list of all modifications (now two pages...). If they know 7s, they'll know there is virtually no such thing as a 'standard' car. My car also runs different wheels/windscreens/nosecones etc from time to time.

 

A bigger issue I would have thought would be not running a cat.

 

Anyone had a claim rejected because of that?

 

On 'normal' cars, any performance enhancement or anything that makes it more attractive to thieves, increases the risk, and may also suggest the driver is more of a risk taker. But 7s are a little different as the risk is priced more on classic car lines - we do low mileages, look after our cars and tend not to leave them in dodgy places and we don't tend to be 'dodgy' people. The car is also relatively easy to fix if it is damaged.

 

But the general rule has always been 'let the insurer' decide. I guess the specific issue with brake pads is that some may not work well until hot so low speed accidents may be more likely. Also, the manufacturer will not have gone through as much testing of that specific pad, as it is only designed to work in race conditions and not in the many other conditions a road pad would. As our cars are very light, a race pad is likely to be perfectly suitable to whatever road conditions we throw at it - whereas a race pad fitted to your Bentley Continental may not be.

 

Andy