I don't understand your logic here. Its Ducati's resposnsibility in law to say that the exhaust is not road legal because it does not pass noise or emissions regulations... whether they put it on their website or not. Currently you can still fit these for a bike used on track only but i suspect that will not be for much longer either, with race tracks being tested for noise as well.
There has to be a disclaimer about illegal for road use otherwise there could be claims against Ducati. No one is going to put in writing that this is illegal for road use but go ahead anyway, you'll be fine. As for insurance maybe illegal parts are in a different category to legal mods such as anodised bobbins and tyre valve caps. My 2 cents worth - not a big fan of noisy full systems - causes grief with almost everyone. And the Pikes Peak is a beautiful bike in stock form anyway.
Is not the description of the exhaust in the posts before not a disclaimer for use , I commented only on this due to experience with the issues with insurance , Im not (hopefully) intentionally annoying folks its more the fact I spent over 2K and then realised the part as far as I could find out was not insurable in the sense of the bike as a whole ie an accident would not be covered as the bike is not road legal whether or not I told them the half truth or my intereption of the facts , it was an expensive mistake for me and only wish to post my findings.
You were right to bring it up, as many, including me, weren't aware. I've raised the question with my dealer, and will also clarify with my insurance company before I go ahead.
A condition of insurance cover will be that the bike is in a road legal condition, it will be in the small print somewhere. By taking out the insurance, you will be confirming to the insurer that the bike is in a road legal condition. If they subsequently find that the bike is was not road legal, perhaps due to fitting a race exhaust, then they will be in a strong position to void your insurance and not provide cover. If they had to pay out to a third party and you had voided your insurance somehow, then i think they are within their rights to try and claim back any pay out from you personally. Much will probably depend on the circumstances, but i would not want that possibility hanging over me especially if i have already parted with £500+ for insurance cover.
This is the wording in my policy with Bemoto: Important Notice: Under the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012, if you do not provide complete and accurate answers to questions asked by us, the insurer may cancel your policy or the insurer may void your policy or the insurer may impose an additional premium along with additional policy terms. This may result in the insurer rejecting or only paying in part claims you make. And: Has your vehicle had any changes since it left the production line, including any changes made by a dealership, you or any previous owner?
Joking apart, I understand everyone’s concern. It probably centres around the legality of the pipe. My car insurance wasn’t questioned over the options I added, but I suspect everything was assumed to be legal as it was factory fitted. As they say, ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law, but I think you’d have a strong argument about something on the bike that was factory/dealer fitted. The days of getting systems such as these factory spec’d are numbered. I’m making the most of it whilst I can. Bbbbrrrrraaaaapppp!
Unless the person enquiring about insurance cover declares this change to their motorcycle and has evidence of their declaration, associated with the specific question(s) asked by the insurer, then I would doubt this would hold up. In my experience when asked about this type of modification, the insurer has always asked about any increase in BHP, which often if less than 5%, has been acceptable. I have never to date, been asked about suitability for 'road-use', which might well be a more recent development, in which case, as you point out above in your post, you, the bike owner, MUST answer truthfully, otherwise in the event of an accident, insurance cover is voided.
But again most insures are under the impression as per their wording the vehicle they insure is road legal . Thus your non disclosure may well cause the voiding of cover . I agree for them to check the power gain is hard but this assumption is based on a road legal bike . This is how I have worked out the honest , safest way to get correct cover . It’s a questionable subject but best open to discussion and facts to help riders .
Do you think the Akra slip on has a deeper, louder sound than a standard end can, some say there is a difference !
I would say yes , but never run with the standard . Im sure the internet will give you a clip , ill have a look
You’d like to think for a £1200 accessory there is some advantage over standard, I know the weight difference is minimal..
This is where the grey area is. Because unless they say the bike must be road legal somewhere else in that document, then strictly speaking, with the above wording (granted this is just an excerpt), so long as they don't ask "is it road legal", then you've fulfilled your obligation. I can't remember what year it was, but the onus shifted from the insured to insurers in terms of who is responsible for extracting what is considered pertinent to giving insurance. This stems from a case brought in the high court where it was decided that a lay-person could not possibly be expected to know what would be considered important to an insurance company when getting a quote, so it became the insurance company's responsibility to elicit all the details. That's why these days their questions are often a lot longer and more detailed, because they have to cover themselves. So, in lieu of any other text from BeMoto, and the questions centering around less than 5% power etc, effectively you've fulfilled the conditions - but this is a very grey area for sure.
If it’s not road legal then strictly speaking it should not be used on the road. I’m pretty sure that is how the law sees it.
I would be interested in knowing what has caused Ducati to now have the attached advisory/warning when you try to access the accessories in the configurator? Is this a new (legal) requirement? I can’t believe this will go unnoticed by, and suspect it won’t be long before, insurance companies react with appropriate questions during quotes (if they haven’t started already). In my opinion the onus is clearly being placed on the insured who can no longer argue that it was a factory fitted/provided option for their road bike so it must be ok?
Yep, started a thread on that here: https://www.ducatiforum.co.uk/threads/new-warning-on-configurator.90202/
