Auxiliary Heating (Not!)

[ChewingBacca]

[Dan1502]

So is the concensus that it is best to have this enabled or not? I only have the basic business cd but believe it can still be enabled. I think mine works on start up as I'm pretty sure I could feel exhaust gasses from the mini exhaust and that they started to get warm but I didn't try for long.

[nujon]

Down to individual choice I guess - if your battery is good, I can see the attraction of the timed or telestart function to de-ice/cosy the cab whilst u finish your breakie (vehicle parked on private property of course!) - also mitigates the risk of theft as the system will operate with the vehicle locked

Personally I would not use the DIY remote set up - but then maybe I'm a wuss (suspect the BMW Telestart receiver is a bit more sophisticated and may operate through the car's safety and control circuits for the Webasto)

[fenj66]

as understood it, a few uk cars were supplied new with the aux heat function on the obc and/or with telestart remote, for an obvious premium as a factory fit option.
So are bmw saying that it was ok for these cars to be able to run the heater when unnoccupied on a public road and not others? i doubt it!

[CondorX5]

Hmmm. What a load of old *****!!! My X, as a few other petrol models do, had a very expensive option box ticked for the aux heating when new....and yes, it was a UK supplied car!! The Webasto is fantastic - a wonderful option and I searched long and hard for a car with it, as I wanted the petrol option. A number of other cars had the same option - notably Rover 75, and currently, EU-specced Ford Kugas (Ford think its "not cold enough" to offer it on UK Kugas). Illegal when running without someone in the vehicle??? I think not. Webasto have a profitable business fitting aux heaters to vehicles as retro / aftermarket fitted add ons - illegal??? Definitely not. The diesel E53 X5s were all fitted with these units AFAIK, although it was an additional cost to have the "comfort" option enabled and a remote provided for this. Can't think BMW would fit illegal bits to cars and then "disable" them via software which can be enabled again. As the diesels had them fitted as standard, and the option for the "comfort" feature was also available as a factory option, and some petrol X5s had them factory fitted as well, they are neither "illegal", nor are they "modifications" for insurance to rip you off. If one is retrofitted independently, that may well be a mod they should hear about, but not the other factory fitted ones. As for those who have them fitted -USE THEM, ENJOY THEM and don't listen to ******. They are perfectly legal and available to purchase easily - my motorhome also has one fitted as do many vans, boats and other vehicles.

[Dan1502]

I have a 3.0d and am about to have some other options coded so thought I might as well have it enabled if that's something they will do. It was not specced with aux heat and only has the business cd ie no comms package. I might retrofit the remote (Webasto) at a later date which I thought might be good, especially as I don't have heated seats. Also I have a trickle charger/reconditioner to keep the battery tip top.

[nujon]

Oh dear! - I have not sought to suggest that fuel-powered aux heaters were illegal either to fit or operate - I was just relaying for members' interest what the BMW geezer said to me re. leaving a vehicle parked unattended on a public road with the unit running - DSTM !

[nujon]

Spoke to LV (my insurer) re. the aux heating - their response:-

1. If the timed start and manual on/off functions are BMW-supplied capabilities (which of course they are) and provided they are enabled either by a BMW-authorised agent or otherwise by a demonstrably 'Competant Person' - no problem as far as LV are concerned -not a 'modification' and no increase in premium

2. Ditto re the 'Telestart' remote operation provided either installed by BMW agent or Webasto/Competant Person - to BMW specs

3. DIY remote - definite 'modification' - must notify LV - potential increase in premium or voiding of cover - if not declared and in the event of a claim, the LA clocked the device, cover would be void irrespective of whether the device was related to the claim (breach of LV's over-riding disclosure condition)

[ITBarbie]

[quote=""nujon""]Oh dear! - I have not sought to suggest that fuel-powered aux heaters were illegal either to fit or operate - I was just relaying for members' interest what the BMW geezer said to me re. leaving a vehicle parked unattended on a public road with the unit running - DSTM ![/quote]
Hi Nujon

No worries. You're right sometimes the dealers come out with stuff that leaves you saying WHAT!

BTW I had to look up what DSTM meant (don't shoot the messenger right?) as hadn't got a clue what it stood for! Lol

Penny


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nujon]

Right re. DSTM !

However makes me wonder why BMW disable the timed start / manual on-off for the UK ('cos they bloomin' do!) - maybe I need to get out more - e.g. get 10m of 10A auto cable an hot-wire everything!

[fenj66]

now thats more like it!
its your car, it costs you a fortune, so get out and make your car like you want it to be, and not stop because of obeying rules and regulations, as if we dont have enough already!

[CondorX5]

[quote=""nujon""]Right re. DSTM !

However makes me wonder why BMW disable the timed start / manual on-off for the UK ('cos they bloomin' do!) - maybe I need to get out more - e.g. get 10m of 10A auto cable an hot-wire everything! [/quote]

Because they can then charge for the comfort option as an "optional extra" so you get to pay a whole lot more for something that's already present in your car, of course!! Any UK dealer would claim that's just commercial sense, we all know it to be the behaviour of a shyster / stealer I get very fed up (as you noticed) with drivel spouted by some t*****er at the dealers who should (but clearly doesn't) know better. Just enjoy your X to the max!!

[nujon]

Thanks all

Last bits from me on Rules & Regs re the heater (pretty promise! xx)

In comparatively recent times apparently, there was a notable global frequency of serious incidents (fires, gassings) - associated with liquid and gas-fuelled aux heaters in vehicles - this resulted, inter-alia in EU Directive 2001/56/EC (27/09/2001) "Heating Systems for Motor Vehicles and their Trailers" - this places conditions on the design and installation of fueled aux heater systems in cars, buses etc. - the Directive remains live and continues to be added to. As expected, Webasto claim compliance with this Directive but (reasonably) recommend periodic testing and servicing of their units - no different in principal to servicing a domestic boiler I guess.

Spoke to our Local Traffic Police Helpline - they highligted:-

1. Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 - Regulation 107:- "No person shall leave, or cause or permit to be left, on a (public) road a motor vehicle which is not attended by a person licensed to drive it unless the engine is stopped and any parking brake with which the vehicle is required to be equipped is effectively set"

Police often 'do' people under this supposed public safety law - a recent high profile victim was Quentin Willson (3xPP + £30) - police can assert 'non attendance' if the driver is not sat in the driver's seat - they refer to it as 'quitting the vehicle'

2. Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 - Regulation 98 - citing the offence of leaving a vehicle engine running unnecessarily while that vehicle is stationary- the 'driver' for Reg 98 is the pollution-control imperative of the Environment Act 1995

Whats all that blether got to do with fuel-powered aux heaters - well maybe nowt unless the law includes such a heater as an engine (in strict scientific sense, of course, it is - being a device that does 'work' - in this case heating water) - maybe that's what my BMW contact meant?

Anyway I fear I'm getting far too obsessed with my new X5 - going to take a break - think I'll go and Brasso my exhaust clamps (Ooo!)

[CondorX5]

I do not believe that a tiny Webasto parking heater constitutes an "engine " as described in the regulations - the meaning of the regulations is clearly intended to prevent unattended vehicles with their engines running and no brake on from causing a hazard / injury to others. The use of the Webasto does not enable the vehicle to move anywhere at all so it is unlikely that the intention of the writers was to prevent a device being used under remote or timer operation, which would in no way enable the vehicle to move unattended or in an unsafe manner. Its also a matter of opinion as to whether the use of the device is "unnecessary" or not. Interpretation of Statutes is quite a long and difficult course at Uni law school (I know, I did it) and the interpretation of the actual intention of the writers of the statutes is sometimes very difficult to resolve, different judges come to different conclusions, which is why we have Case Law precedents, in order to achieve consistency in the interpretation of statutes.

In this case, I would be very interested to hear of any successful prosecutions of car owners using their Webasto parking heaters on a timer / remote basis for 20 minutes while they wait for the car to defrost / deice before beginning their journies.

I also wonder if anyone has been successfully prosecuted for running their vehicles for short periods in order to keep the battery / engine turned over periodically when the vehicle is not in regular use....... Depends on the interpretation of "unnecessarily" I guess - I would argue it is "necessary" to do so in order to keep the vehicle in good running order when it is not in regular use. Also consider gridlock / traffic jams where cars can remain stationary for hours - have any of those motorists been prosecuted for keeping their engines running while stationary?

Re vehicle fires due to Parking Heaters - it makes the utmost sense to ensure that the parking heater is safe and well maintained. I'm not sure if it is any more likely to burst into flames than a boiler is, but given its location in proximity to flammable fuel, it is a potential danger which would be mitigated by ensuring proper maintenance.

Just a thought, but if all cars were banned , then we'd have no problems with Parking heaters, leaving vehicles with engines running, costs of maintenance, fuel and shady car dealers..........or indeed, the interpretation of legislation!!!!!!

[nujon]

[quote=""CondorX5""]I do not believe that a tiny Webasto parking heater constitutes an "engine " as described in the regulations - the meaning of the regulations is clearly intended to prevent unattended vehicles with their engines running and no brake on from causing a hazard / injury to others. The use of the Webasto does not enable the vehicle to move anywhere at all so it is unlikely that the intention of the writers was to prevent a device being used under remote or timer operation, which would in no way enable the vehicle to move unattended or in an unsafe manner. Its also a matter of opinion as to whether the use of the device is "unnecessary" or not. Interpretation of Statutes is quite a long and difficult course at Uni law school (I know, I did it) and the interpretation of the actual intention of the writers of the statutes is sometimes very difficult to resolve, different judges come to different conclusions, which is why we have Case Law precedents, in order to achieve consistency in the interpretation of statutes.

In this case, I would be very interested to hear of any successful prosecutions of car owners using their Webasto parking heaters on a timer / remote basis for 20 minutes while they wait for the car to defrost / deice before beginning their journies.

I also wonder if anyone has been successfully prosecuted for running their vehicles for short periods in order to keep the battery / engine turned over periodically when the vehicle is not in regular use....... Depends on the interpretation of "unnecessarily" I guess - I would argue it is "necessary" to do so in order to keep the vehicle in good running order when it is not in regular use. Also consider gridlock / traffic jams where cars can remain stationary for hours - have any of those motorists been prosecuted for keeping their engines running while stationary?

Re vehicle fires due to Parking Heaters - it makes the utmost sense to ensure that the parking heater is safe and well maintained. I'm not sure if it is any more likely to burst into flames than a boiler is, but given its location in proximity to flammable fuel, it is a potential danger which would be mitigated by ensuring proper maintenance.

Just a thought, but if all cars were banned , then we'd have no problems with Parking heaters, leaving vehicles with engines running, costs of maintenance, fuel and shady car dealers..........or indeed, the interpretation of legislation!!!!!! [/quote]

I agree with this rationale - I noted in passing during my browsing on the subject that the Scottish Parliament actually went to the lengths of debating Reg 98 and the 'unnecessary' clause (no wonder the UK is near bloody bankrupt!) - and issuing formal guidance to their enforcement officers (Police and EPOs). Their basic guidance was to take a 'common sense' approach - inc a 'blind eye' to obvious de-frosting endevours - and otherwise only to issue a FPN if the vehicle owner refused an Officer's request to turn the engine off.