Carol Nash And Aftermarket Exhausts (tors)

I have got an after market on my Tiger Sport, CN were fine and just made a note on my policy, there was no addition to premium. They didn’t want to know the make and were helpful when I phoned them.

Hope this helps.

 

If road legal they are fine but will only cover cost of oem parts if totalled or stolen.

 

What I understood of this matter is: Fit your custom pipes, pray you don't get inspected by the police, if you crash, change your pipes back to original before sending it for estimation of damage.

 

I’m with Just Motorcycle Insurance, told them about my exhausts and they just said that’s fine, no charge. I’m on Motad’s btw.

 

Just tell them at next renewal , it’s not worth the hassle Sam.
Suppose you went up north to visit a friend on the bike and some numpty hits and makes it unrideable.
Insurance is unlikely to transport it back if it sounds like a write off.
You would have no chance to swap them over then.

 

True.

 

I fitted TORS pipes to my Bonneville in 2001. It has passed every single MoT since with them on. The 'Not for Road Use' mark also includes stuff about not meeting EPA and federal standards and implies it applies to the US market. This year I informed Devitt that the bike had been modified. They wanted to know make and model number. I have yet to hear from them. I accessed the CN site and filled in a form for insurance to see what Qs they asked...nothing about the detail of the exhausts. Devitt were interested about increase in BHP and stated that they had a 5% margin, up to which they did not consider it made a difference. On my Bonny that is 61 BHP as standard so up to 64 BHP. The TORs exhausts on their own do not break this limit. I would useMcAMs in the event of a no fault 'shunt', it bypasses one's own insurer and they take up cudgels on your behalf.

 

Devitt has come back (22 August 2020) and said "...as long as (the exhaust) is road legal". This seems like a daft question....but what is the actual legal status of TORS pipes on the roads? Is passing an MoT proof pf legality?

 

Any mod that increases performance is an issue if a claim is made. They will avoid a payout if at all possible.

 

Triumph Off Road = TORS. Most MOT stations allow but insurers are a law unto their own

 

yes...that what I think. the proof would come after the need to claim, and spends on who gets the bike if you are not able to control who inspects the bike. TBH I am not so vexed for me, but for a third party in the case of an accident.

 

https://www.bennetts.co.uk/bikesocial/news-and-views/advice/biking-tips/how-to-avoid-an-mot-fail

https://www.bennetts.co.uk/bikesoci...ce/2018-new-mot-laws-what-they-mean-to-bikers

Triumph TOR silencers are, in my experience, clearly marked "NOT FOR ROAD USE" - certainly the ones for the Street Triple are. If the MOT tester sees a NFRU sign he/she is llegally obliged to fail it - and is likely to do so if he values his licence to test and doesn't know the machine's owner well enough to be certain the pass won't come back to bite the tester on the bum. Big time.

The TOR markings on the Street Triple silencers are on the inner side of the can - still easily quite visible and noticeable but not glaringly obvious. I placed some heating foil tape over the marking "plate" (on the ST cans it's a machine engraved/stamped notice) on the silencers, even though I know the tester very well. I certainly wouldn't want to risk his job and integrity for my vanity and laziness.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Thermawrap...e-Watertight/dp/B00L5F4FJQ?ref_=fsclp_pl_dp_2

 

My exhausts clearly state NFRU after the text regarding EPA and Federal standards - this latter implies this applies to the US only. I've never had a problem with MoT and assumed that as it passed they are 'road legal'. We don't have case study in law?

 

And I'm, personally, not looking to be the one to be the subject of any future case study.

I can't remember what the stamping is on the Street Triple TOR cans - I covered the 'label' when I fitted them - but I DO know that it clearly says 'NOT FOR ROAD USE' and I'm farily sure there are no obvious related geographical or regional definitions.

I'm more than happy to concede that I'd probably get away with a wink or a nod from the guy I use to test my bike, but I certainly wouldn't willingly risk compromising a tester's status or risk a fail if I had to use another tester. I'm also very happy that you've never had a problem with yours - though, personally, I wouldn't rely on an implication or assumption about a regional or market application that wasn't clearly and specifically stated.

MOT's are a really prickly area - what might fail in one station can be overlooked or ignored in another. From what I understand, though, disputing or appealing against a failure is something of a nightmare and to be avoided. If a simple piece of tape can be the means of avoiding that kind of pain then that's fine by me.

 

When I brought my Street Triple it came with TORS (unknown to me) and it had just passed an MOT a couple of days before. After I discovered the silencers were TORS I replaced them for standard silencers, as I know from experience many insurers will refuse to cover any bike with performance modifications and particularly performance silencers. Also I can't see how anyones insurance in the UK can be valid with silencers that are specifically marked as "NOT FOR ROAD USE", so I didn't want to find that my insurance was invalid in the event I ever had to make a claim.

Even if you inform your insurer that you have after market silencers, and they are happy to provide cover, I'm pretty certain that had you told them they are designed for off road use and marked not for road use, then the insurer would refuse. I also wonder what your legal liability would be if you were the responsible party in an accident, could you be sued/prosecuted for not having a road legal vehicle?

So I guess that is the risk you take if you want to use TORS

 

Tried to add my Remus silencers (fully road legal) to my insurance a couple of weeks ago and found out my underwriter would not accept any modifications at all. Had to cancel the policy and take out a new one with a different company that did allow modifications. Added the rear sets and custom seat while I was at it just to be on the safe side.

 

Fitted D-cat pipe to my Bonneville, Carol Nash doubled the premium. Still trying to get policy updated stating the modification, but they have failed 3 times to get the mod on the policy. They tell me it is noted on their system and all is covered.

 

Update: Triumph stated my pipes were for the US market (that confirms and explains the EPA and Federal regulations references in the warning on the pipes), but because the pipes also had NFRU, they were In Triumphs view ‘essentially not road legal’. This is certainly true for the US but Triumph said this without stating ‘in the UK’. One reading is that they are implying it. Yet, the context of the warning on the pipes (EPA etc) and the fact they are for the US market, makes it clearly US focused.

If you ever were in court over this point then argument would ensue as to whether it is defensible or not. A lawyer needs to suggest whether this is an arguable case in law. Pipes made for the US market with US warnings should/should not be binding in the UK? Oh...what a can of worms in court. Would the court take Triumphs view? Would it see the context?

Note the word ‘essentially’ used by Triumph. That sounds like sitting on the fence a little. The pipes ‘are’ or ‘are not’ road legal in the UK. What does ‘essentially’ mean in this context?

I can hear lawyers sharpening pencils and reaching for transport law books.

To get a bike road legal in the UK as we all know, you need an MoT.

The MoT currently has not defined, or objectively measures, noise or emissions standards, and the tester merely revs to half revs and makes a judgement as to whether the noise is about the same level as standard machines.

It is clear, as others have pointed out that once they spot NFRU (regardless of context) they should fail the bike...then it is not road legal.

This is despite it being, in my case, only applicable to pipes destined for the US. My bike has passed 17 MoTs with those pipes, making it as far as the MoT is concerned, historically road legal. Would a court rule this history as non admissible? I’ve no idea. I don’t want to fork out legal fees to find out.

A fix is of course is to cover the NFRU with tape. Then the tester has no choice to make. As with football, don’t give the referee evidence for a penalty. To cover myself with the insurer, I told them about the warning on the pipes. They, the insurer, now know what the pipes are. I gave them part numbers and the manufacturer. They wanted to know who made the pipes, how much they increased bhp (there is a 5% leeway in which there is no issue at all) and if they are road legal. This latter point is of course decided by the MoT. If you cover the NFRU warning, pass an MoT, but do not tell the insurer you in theory open yourself up to dispute later. This situation is then one of a legal case.

I have it on record that the insurer now knows exactly what those pipes are, and that they are happy to insure the bike, as long as it is road legal (established by an MoT). My insurer is liable because they have to accept an MoT and can’t dodge the liability because I’ve told them what the pipes are.

I have been told however that noise and emissions standards are coming for the UK, and that some countries (Germany, Austria, Switzerland) already have them, resulting in for example standard Harley Davidsons failing those standards and therefore illegal.

In short, keep your factory pipes. You will need them.

thank you.

 

I have one 2001 Bonnie that came fitted with TORS pipes and had just passed an MOT with the dealer I bought it from. I didn't know they were actually TORS at all because, unlike the standard pipes where the information is stamped on the exhausts in plain sight, the TORS on mine have the NFRU information lasered or printed onto the underside so I only discovered it by getting down and having a look underneath. I don't think that could be taken as anything other than Triumph at the very least trying to make the information less obvious. I do have to say that the TORS on my bike are not terribly loud at all when compared to my other 2001 Bonnie which has Norman Hyde Togas that are comparable with a sixties Bonnie but, although I have only really given them a cursory inspection I don't believe there are any markings at all on the Norman Hyde ones in regard of UK legality and that bike also came to me from a dealer with a fresh MOT. Would I be able to plead ignorance in the event of any issue over them? After all, if you are not very knowledgeable about what is and isn't legal you rely on the retailer and MOT tester to determine whether a vehicle is road legal and so if the MOT tester hasn't felt there was a problem and the retailer never informed you of the legality of your pipes how is ignorant Joe Public meant to know?