hi everybody I was hoping for some advice on the above topic,i fitted some mad auxiliary springs to my 2016 Mondeo estate last april & informed my insurers [saga] & no problem,the lady on the phone actually googled them to see exactly what they were however when I used a comparison site to see if the renewal quote was competitive I spoke to a couple of insurers regarding the tow bar & springs & 1 would not insure me & the other doubled the excess & put another £40 on the premium which I found a little bit annoying to say the least as if anything these excellent products are a added safety feature whilst towing & make no difference when not towing.the irony was that when I mentioned the tow bar they did not seem bothered for a part that could cost potentially in excess of £600 as opposed to the springs that cost £160 fitted.would appreciate any input on this issue.
spring assisters & insurance
- Thread starter lordmonty
- Start date
I fitted a set of MAD springs to my 2008 Santa Fe and my insurer The AA said no problem, no change to the cost. The certainly helped my SF, with a Coachman 545 on the back.
I fitted MAD auxiliary springs instead of Skoda uprated rear springs. As you say they have no effect on solo driving but the car doesn’t bottom out and rub its towball base on speed humps. I notified my insurer and the additional premium was less than £10 pa whereas the towbar notification cost nothing. The insurer explained that suspension mods do attract the increase unless manufacturer approved. But the Skoda uprated springs would have raised the car noticeably and given a harder overall ride as they were designed for Skodas used where roads are rougher such as Russsia or India.
Spring assisters are a modification and must be declared to your insurer. How they deal with it will depend on their attitude to them. So will see this as a boy racer mod and just not want to know and others will listen and if it is for towing just accept it for what nit is. A lot depends on if the staff have leeway to alter the automatic warning declaring this will give. In some cases the computer says no and that is it, in others the staff can override it if appropriate.
Do not feel you can get away with them being fitted and not declaring it as after an accident they are easily spotted by an engineer and will almost certainly mean the claim is refused.
Do not feel you can get away with them being fitted and not declaring it as after an accident they are easily spotted by an engineer and will almost certainly mean the claim is refused.
The rubber block spring spacers are a different issue. I suspect some Insurers may confuse these basic assist orbs with the more technically able MAD ones. These blocks actually stiffenthevrear springs by locking parts of the coil spring causing a much smaller part of the spring to do the suspension work. There is the potential for premature spring failure.
Ray is 100% correct. Any modification must be advised to your Insurer.
Ray is 100% correct. Any modification must be advised to your Insurer.
lordmonty said:
When a car is designed, the suspension is set up by the manufacture to cope with all the demands that will be placed upon it within the the limits of teh vehicles specification. Consequently there should be no mechanical reason to fit spring assisters.
If a vehicle when towing sits too low at the rear, the first thing you should do is to check the vehicles rear axle is not over loaded. and the tyres are correctly inflated. If the vehicle is still to low despite the loads all being specification, you must begin to suspect wear or damage to suspension parts.
The fitting of spring assisters does not constitute a repair to faulty suspension parts. Nor does it increase the available load margin on the tow bar or rear axle.
Spring assisters are a modification that affects the performance or handling of a vehicle and should be declared to the insurer as it changes the risk profile of the vehicle.
Spring assisters only meet the desire of the driver to make their vehicle appear to be different. and represents the probability the owner should have chosen a different standard vehicle to meet their needs or desires.
Can't say that I've used the spring assisters but the price never change when got a towbar fitted. Howerver the insurance went up £30 and that was only because we changed from a 10 year old Toyota to a nearly new Ford what we have now which I can't complain about . I could feel the van bouncing on the back of the Toyota which the assisters may have come in handy but on this for that we have now I don't even notice the van on the back and suspension barely moves when hooked up . Like a previous posts said some insurance companies will they just say yeah no bother , then some hammer you with cost !!
A car manufacturer designs the suspension to be optimum for handling, road holding and comfort with a typical load. In this, they will not consider a caravan load to be typical, especially in the case of a saloon car. They will probably consider the presence of a caravan as a special load case, to check that road holding etc remain acceptable, but they will not optimise for it. In the case of a vehicle more likely to be used for towing (eg a Land Rover) they are likely to slant the optimisation some way towards towing, but not entirelyProfJohnL said:
Therefore, someone who tows regularly might well benefit from the suspension design being biased more to the towing configuration, especially as road holding and stability is a greater issue when towing than when not towing. Simply, higher spring stiffness and higher damping will be advantageous. If your car has active suspension this is what it will do automatically, and certainly in that case after-market additions are not needed.
The matter is not as simple as the caravan being like an extra dead load of 75 kg (or whatever your "nose weight" is). Dynamically, the caravan places an inertia at the towbar which is greater than a simple 75 kg point mass; it would do so even if you balanced your van to give a nose weight of zero.
FWIW, suspension height is a different matter from suspension stiffness. Spacers under the rear springs do not increase stiffness, but, with a towbar load, they can restore the suspension attitude to what the car maker designed it to be, which will be the optimum for handling.
Don't expect any technical logic from car insurers. Their logic is to squeeze as much money from you as possible, and will use any excuse to do so.
Spring assisters only meet the desire of the driver to make their vehicle appear to be different. and represents the probability the owner should have chosen a different standard vehicle to meet their needs or desires.[/quote]
Prof I knew what your reply would be, but must take issue with your final paragraph. I fitted MAD auxiliary springs not to make the car appear
different as aesthetics aren’t a thing I bother about. Also buying a car that had won multiple awards as TCOY to be used for towing 1300 kg MTPLM isn’t really an illogical choice? But the facts are that even towing the van with a 70-75 kg noseweight and the car unloaded it bottomed the base of the towball coming off the drive and on local speed humps. Before deciding on MAD auxiliary springs I had the car rear suspension checked out in its MIS condition and with suspension unloaded. The Skoda dealership that I used has been servicing the marque since I bought my Estelle from them many years back. They also checked the towbar fitment which is Witter type approved detachable ball and towball height. Tyres etc were checked. The car was just under three years old and contacting the previous owner he told me that it hadn’t been used for towing or heavy loads. In all respects the Car and it’s towbar checked out as okay. But the Skoda dealer did tell me that they had had some other owners have similar issues of grounding the towball. So not wanting to risk damage to the car/van when towing I decided to go ahead with the firing of MAD auxiliary springs rather than fit Skoda rough terrain springs which would have lifted the car by quite a lot more than the MAD springs. They hardly change the appearance of the car but due to their preload the rear has gone up a very small amount otherwise they would rattle. Driving solo or when towing there is no discernible difference in the car’scharacteristics.
But I was intrigued as to why a multiple TCOY would need them. I have two theories one is that the design of the Witter detachable towball has a U shape with its base quite flat. Whereas the Skoda OEM towball is more a J shape where the base curves upwards more sharply towards the rearmost direction. Combined with it being a low car the towbar is so low it’s the only car I’ve ever had that I have to knell and look underneath to fit the towball and breakaway cable. The second possible theory is that our local speed humps (transverse humps and truncated ones) are at the upper end of their height specification. When I contacted the council the reply was basically that they meet the approved standards. But the Skoda is the only car I’ve had ie not raised suspension that has grounded the towbar coming off the drive. My various Mondeos, Saab 9000 etc never gave a problem. So I suspect that it’s a combination of specified dimensions that come together to just reduce the ground clearance enough to grunch the base of the towball. Of course I could have lived with it and moved the van onto the road by mover etc etc. But there would still have been a higher risk when towing a loaded outfit.
Other than change the towbar (or car) at significantly extra cost I would welcome observations.
Prof I knew what your reply would be, but must take issue with your final paragraph. I fitted MAD auxiliary springs not to make the car appear
different as aesthetics aren’t a thing I bother about. Also buying a car that had won multiple awards as TCOY to be used for towing 1300 kg MTPLM isn’t really an illogical choice? But the facts are that even towing the van with a 70-75 kg noseweight and the car unloaded it bottomed the base of the towball coming off the drive and on local speed humps. Before deciding on MAD auxiliary springs I had the car rear suspension checked out in its MIS condition and with suspension unloaded. The Skoda dealership that I used has been servicing the marque since I bought my Estelle from them many years back. They also checked the towbar fitment which is Witter type approved detachable ball and towball height. Tyres etc were checked. The car was just under three years old and contacting the previous owner he told me that it hadn’t been used for towing or heavy loads. In all respects the Car and it’s towbar checked out as okay. But the Skoda dealer did tell me that they had had some other owners have similar issues of grounding the towball. So not wanting to risk damage to the car/van when towing I decided to go ahead with the firing of MAD auxiliary springs rather than fit Skoda rough terrain springs which would have lifted the car by quite a lot more than the MAD springs. They hardly change the appearance of the car but due to their preload the rear has gone up a very small amount otherwise they would rattle. Driving solo or when towing there is no discernible difference in the car’scharacteristics.
But I was intrigued as to why a multiple TCOY would need them. I have two theories one is that the design of the Witter detachable towball has a U shape with its base quite flat. Whereas the Skoda OEM towball is more a J shape where the base curves upwards more sharply towards the rearmost direction. Combined with it being a low car the towbar is so low it’s the only car I’ve ever had that I have to knell and look underneath to fit the towball and breakaway cable. The second possible theory is that our local speed humps (transverse humps and truncated ones) are at the upper end of their height specification. When I contacted the council the reply was basically that they meet the approved standards. But the Skoda is the only car I’ve had ie not raised suspension that has grounded the towbar coming off the drive. My various Mondeos, Saab 9000 etc never gave a problem. So I suspect that it’s a combination of specified dimensions that come together to just reduce the ground clearance enough to grunch the base of the towball. Of course I could have lived with it and moved the van onto the road by mover etc etc. But there would still have been a higher risk when towing a loaded outfit.
Other than change the towbar (or car) at significantly extra cost I would welcome observations.
Hello Hutch, I'm a bit surprised you fitted spring assisters to a 4x4 which probably has a permitted tow ball weight of 120 - 130 KG ? In any case many caravan chassis have a maximum hitch load of 100kg, so there should be a considerable margin built in ?
I have a Coachman 545 too and do not notice any problems with a Freelander 2 which is much the same size as you tow car. We carry a fair amount of kit in the car for long stay trips but put all the heavy stuff forward of the rear axle as far as possible and actually think the care handles better in this configuration than unloaded and not towing..
Would be interesting to know what nature of improvements you get.
I have a Coachman 545 too and do not notice any problems with a Freelander 2 which is much the same size as you tow car. We carry a fair amount of kit in the car for long stay trips but put all the heavy stuff forward of the rear axle as far as possible and actually think the care handles better in this configuration than unloaded and not towing..
Would be interesting to know what nature of improvements you get.
Dr. Z
I'm sorry but you explanation does not hold water.
The car manufacturers would laughed out of court if they did not design their vehicles to accept the maximum load they include within their specifications. That would be false advertising and not producing a product fit for its stated capability/purpose.
If the manufactures do not consider their vehicles are suitable for towing, then why do they include a allowed towed weight, they can set it at zero as some do. And by EU regulation if there is a stated towed weight limit then the tow bar assembly and its fixings must be capable of handling a static minimum of 25Kg or 4% of the towed weight limit. Which ever is bigger and with due consideration to the dynamic loading effects whilst towing.
As for the inertial loading nose load produces it is only the equivalent effect of the nose load. And it has to include consideration of the dynamic loads that are imparted whilst towing which can be several times the magnitude of the static value, but are usually of short duration.
I never suggested the design would be optimised for the caravan nose load, but the car must be capable if it falls within the cars specification.
I'm sorry but you explanation does not hold water.
The car manufacturers would laughed out of court if they did not design their vehicles to accept the maximum load they include within their specifications. That would be false advertising and not producing a product fit for its stated capability/purpose.
If the manufactures do not consider their vehicles are suitable for towing, then why do they include a allowed towed weight, they can set it at zero as some do. And by EU regulation if there is a stated towed weight limit then the tow bar assembly and its fixings must be capable of handling a static minimum of 25Kg or 4% of the towed weight limit. Which ever is bigger and with due consideration to the dynamic loading effects whilst towing.
As for the inertial loading nose load produces it is only the equivalent effect of the nose load. And it has to include consideration of the dynamic loads that are imparted whilst towing which can be several times the magnitude of the static value, but are usually of short duration.
I never suggested the design would be optimised for the caravan nose load, but the car must be capable if it falls within the cars specification.
DrZhivago said:
I am with Hutch and Clive on this one after using Shogun for 10 years without spring assisters we swapped to 2013 Santa Fe, without the spring assisters the caravan, Coachman 545/4, was very nose down and bounce could be felt, once the spring assisters were fitted the tow was much improved , bounce was eliminated and the outfit now feels much better. Insurance company noted the modification but no extra premium was charged.I don't consider the Santa Fe a true 4x4 like the Shogun,although it tows the caravan as well as the Shogun, it is usually a large front wheel drive hatchback.
....way back in the late 1980's I had a Montego Diesel estate that was used to go tent camping with a family of four with no issues. It carried a considerable load with just the tyre pressures being increased.
The car coped easily........but when the car was used to tow a caravan with a lighter load in the boot area it suffered from pitching and wallowing. The outfit was level when stationary.
The addition of spring assisters at the rear completely cured the problem........so on some vehicles the facts are they can be beneficial.
The car coped easily........but when the car was used to tow a caravan with a lighter load in the boot area it suffered from pitching and wallowing. The outfit was level when stationary.
The addition of spring assisters at the rear completely cured the problem........so on some vehicles the facts are they can be beneficial.
Hi Ray, the SF has a Tow bar limit of 100 kg, on my 2008 SF, the problem was a bit of bounce whilst towing and the jocky wheel grounding when getting on and off Ferries, especially when fully loaded, as the MAD's people are based near me, I went in and talked to them I decided to try them out. I had measured the original springs and all seemed ok. But after fitting the MAD's the car was much better when towing.
So I am in favour of them.
So I am in favour of them.
Facebook
Twitter