mutant_matt

Topjimo,

I have a piece of software (as do many others) than can remove fault codes from the MY01 and newer cars. It's called DeltaDash and is made by EcuTek. The dealers have something similar and is called a Select Monitor. Let me know if I'm teaching you to suck eggs BTW

Unless of course, if this is a "new" kind of fault code then you may be right, and I'd guess that like the man said, if you can put it in there, you can get it out (MY01> DeltaDash currently undergoing programming ), but I'd be surprised.....

Matt

[Edited by mutant_matt - 7/24/2002 8:20:00 AM]

nadger

Also to add some more fuel to the fire.
When I was looking for my first Scooby last Nov the first Subaru dealer I went to was trying to sell me a MY99 with a SS exhaust on also saying it would come with the balance of the warrenty and tryed to sell be extended warrenty on it. Also I remember a post a while back where a dealer a sold a RB5 with a full decat with warrenty and then refused to carry out warrenty work on it.

Nick

T5NYW

iTrader: (4)

I would be a bit concerned now about buying secondhand Subaru's at the moment even one's from dealer This could get really mucky

Subaru/IM/dealers all have put sales and demo cars to the track in order for driver improvement and car sales. Many of us been in them, have Pic's of them and know their Reg No's.

Surely to be non-discrimentory these would also lose their warrentee's and therefore they would have sold cars of un-mechandisable quality and should be able to demand a full refund.

IMHO

Tony,

Ps the fairess way is to say to all owner from now on if you XXXXXX then warrenty void. Not in the sneaky underhand way in which they did Lots of UK owners would have been unaware of the risks of losing there warrenty and may not have entered the trackday if the risks had been known. IMHO

banshi

AFAIR the issue, excluding mods, is misuse not simply attending a trackday!

And as said before, discriminatory or not IM make the rules and incurr the costs/consequences.

Mischieviously enquiring about the warranty on P1 **F which had been used extensively for demos at trackdays. I was told all track time was supervised & the car was serviced/checked after each event. It would have a detailed inspection before sale and carry a full warranty when sold.

i.e. appropriate steps were taken before, during and after periods of hard driving and IM were happy to underwrite the mechanical integrity of the vehicle.

Totally different to turning up at donno with minimal fluid just before a service is due and cooking the engine or melting the brakes.

But geuess who is judge and jury

GazP

Plates off, tax disc off and any form of ID for the car not displayed is the way to go.

OK if you tune the car to create a lot more power and then the engine goes pop then you don't deserve a warranty claim, but if you change the exhuast and the clutch dies you do.

IM seem to be very cheeky photographing you, I would advertise this very strongly before all future track days in case some one else gets caught out, as IMHO it is a big naughty what they have done.

johnfelstead

I would have thought any business carrying out its work whilst on the property of the Donington circuit would have to get permision from the Donington management prior to this, otherwise they are taking liberties with Donington Park as a business. I would not be at all surprised if donington has restrictions on this.

Also, in future, SIDC events should ban any non aproved business being carried out on its events and a condition of entry is that they should be in a private capacity only!

Would you like to comment on this one Pete?

banshi

So everyone's in paranoia mode!

First Question: Is there evidence that anyone with an unmodified/undamaged car had their warranty voided??

Second Question: If so was that a result of trackday attendance substantiated by photographic evidence?

I went to a trackday at Anglesey. My wife drove down later in the Scoob to spectate, whilst there I noticed one of the BookaTrack staff taking photos of the cars in the paddock (including ours.)

Does this mean that they are in the pay of IM and that any warranty claim I may make is liable to be refused


Just off to the motor factors to get a set of P111 **F plates & a vin number sized sticke for the windsceen

[Edited by banshi - 7/24/2002 5:46:49 PM]

Fizz

iTrader: (1)

I wonder what the press would have to say about such underhanded tactics?

CraigH

Jon,

That stinks [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]

Hasn't the point of Jons comments been missed by most tho? How underhand this is - not the fact that the warranty has been voided or the reasons behind it, but the way in which it has been done?

banshi

Craig

Excuse my relentless search for facts, but at this point Jons attendance at Donnington & the withdrawl of warranty could be simply coincidence.

Many other cars were there but there's only been one new void notification according to Shark. If this is a general IM strategy surely there would be more.

The photographer didn't announce he was an IM employee at the time and there has been no direct contact with the owner. So why conclude that it was him, the Service Manager could just as easily inform IM based on a conversation with a third party.

CraigH

Banshi,

Yeah that's true - was just jumping in feet first, guns blazing in true Scoobynet fashion

Dave T-S

I got a better idea - if you have a MY01 or STi, just get a set of plates made up the same as one of SUK's demo fleet cars and run with them

Note - I did not suggest this idea, I am not serious, you do this at your own risk etc....

banshi

Wouldn't work for me Dave, that's why I got that one and some little velcro patches.

If you've a new one, no probs.
Just wander down and get the reg from one being PDId before collection.

Craig
so uncharacteristic of your normal reticent manner and reluctance to reach for the extra large wooden spoon

Pete Croney

With regard to photographic evidence, I intend to ask the SIDC AGM to pass a rule whereby the SIDC will own the copyright of all photographs taken at future SIDC events.

Between then and now, I will be getting legal advice on making it work, to protect members privacy to go where they want in their cars without being snooped upon.

mutant_matt

Pete,

Won't that cause Josh a problem?

Matt

Dave T-S

Matt
No, because the SIDC will sell the copyright to certain people such as Josh for, say, a penny. I may not have the exact detail but Pete and I were talking about this the other day, and i've posted it as he won't get the chance to reply until Monday.

johnfelstead

The SIDC owning copyright to my own property, ie my photos and video film, i dont think so! Thats a step too far. I would be quite happy with them restricting any comercial businesses at their events and having strict rules in people working in the employ of anyone attending but there is no way i will allow the SIDC to hold the copyright to my property.

Dave T-S

I'll step out of this one and leave it to Pete to respond tomorrow.....

boomer

I agree with johnfelstead. How on earth could the SIDC own the copyright on a photgraph of my car taken by my camera??? No bloody way [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]

Also, how do you stop IM or whoever simply coming in an noting down the registration numbers on a pad?

And how to you stop IM or whoever from parking opposite the entrance and videoing every car as it enters?

mb

Jza

Jeez guys.. Pete's trying to fix the problem and your worried about rights to your photo's - what do you want - cake and eat it?? Why not listen to what he has to say b4 going off on one!!

Pete - any news on this as i'd be very interested!!

Jza

KevMac

Subaru garages will always do warranty work on modded cars for the revenue and not tell IM.

I think this car was voided NOT because of track day usage but because of the mods.

Now a garage can’t do work on the car because IM have it on the database.

johnfelstead

Not going off on one, as you put it. I am letting him know that the thought about copyrighting OUR property is not an option. There are other ways to skin a cat you know!

Andrewza

It's not hard to make the rule so that it only applies to commercial entities, so personal photography is unaffected.

More importantly has anyone actually got an official statement/response from IM as to why this particular warranty was cancelled or their position on track days and warranties?

P20SPD

iTrader: (1)

i think the legal copyright of the camera film belongs to the owner of the camera/person taking pictures. nothing you can do about the camera thing AFAIK.

Pete Croney

Calm down guys.

The plan still needs a legal framework, but my idea was not to stop people taking pictures, merely to stop the pictures being sold or used for commercial gain. Use in a court or elsewhere, to void a warranty, would be commercial gain. The person taking them is probably a club member (almost certainly) and the day may well be a day off, albeit the subject of a, later, expenses and overtime claim.

The situation is going to get much worse.

With the end of block exemption, an owner will be able to have his car serviced at his chosen local specialist. IM and the dealer network may not see it for 2.5 years, until, say, the turbo fails. They will have no way of knowing if the car has been modified and the mods subsequently removed and if those mods were the cause of the part failure. The only way they could find out would be to snoop... on bulletin boards and at club meets.

I am not saying it would be legal or ethical for that owner to make a claim, but I think there are important civil liberties issues involved. Either we ban photography all together, or we control how the photos are used.

Lets include another potential scenario... Dave and his wife own an Impreza. Dave decides that he wants to go to the Bedford track day, which is on a Wednesday, but his wife forbids it because they are saving for a new carpet and she thinks it may be dangerous. Dave goes anyway and has a great day, but tells the missus that he was on a training course, away from the office for the day. She looks through the gallery the following morning and sees pics of Dave, sideways through the hairpin, grinning from ear to ear. The ensuing divorce costs Dave his home and his business. Is Dave entitled to attend without having his picture published for the world to see?

I welcome any other ideas on this.

Dave T-S

Pete
How did you know we are saving for a new carpet???

Neil Smalley

Not wishing to go too far off the point, I have little sympathy for 'Dave' as he should have been honest with his wife and respected her views rather than skulk off behind her back.

The copyright of all photo's etc is a good one. But what's to stop someone walking around jotting down the number plates using pen and paper.

What's needed IMHO is

1. A 100% defintative and clear statement from IM about trackday use of the cars. So we all know where we stand
2. All attendees at a track day to 'register' and sign a disclaimer stating that any information gained on the day will not be used for commercial gain. That gets around the pen and paper situation and lets John take as many photos as he likes.

As a side effect we could use the same form as used for passengers on trackdays.

Carolyn T-S

and next time Dave - use your own car The blue one is mine

and yes the carpet does come before the PPP

Dave T-S

Whoops.....

Don't worry dear, I ordered the carpet this morning.....

Topjimo

I have to say, that I agree with Mr Smalley on this one, it will be far easier to control this on entry to a track, by making everyone sign a disclaimer, stating what they can and can’t do with the photos.

I see what Pete is trying to do, by making all photos technically the property of the SIDC, then who ever owns them could never use them for say a court case etc with out the permission of the SIDC, although they could actually own them, i.e. to look at.

The problem is always going to crop up at big events, as it’s just to tempting for IM not to get involved.

We have the people power; maybe it’s time to use it,