LAMS approved bikes

[quickbuck]

It is 1kg heavier and quoted power was only 53HP instead of 59HP which isn't quite true

Random figures of convenience

[Ragingrob]

Now you have confused me.
LAMS doesn't take effect until October 1st....
The current situation is as it has been for the past few years.

Sorry,, it might be the pills.....

Unfortunately, the bike insurance industry is similar, when I insured my bike (1670cc) I ended up using Kiwibike insurance, completely different attitude to my preceding insurer. When you talk to the sales rep's or brokers, most have no idea about motorcycle's in general. I was told "oh 1700cc thats powerful"..."no it isnt, its a V twin and low revving. It has half the BHP of a 1000cc+ sprot bike, and is about 100kph slower on top speed"..... "yes but its 1700cc so it has to be powerful"... if you look at europe, cars are put into groups, engine size, ancillary equipment like turbo's etc.... type of car, sports, coupe', family saloon all contribute to the insurance group the car ends up in, with the stepped licence system they have bikes have also been loosely 'grouped now'.. Here, they simply have'nt and probably wont do the same for bikes, they can make more 'revenue' by simply using a cc and value formula to quote you.

Haha I was actually meaning that paying more for a dr650 compared to a gsxr600 is not necessarily stupid, we all know it's down to the individual so I thought it was just a throwaway comment... I'd be thinking a rider with years of experience would pay less ACC than a L-plate rider hopping on a dr650/ktm as their very first bike.

[Ender EnZed]

So rider 1 is on a gsxr600 commuting to and from work in the city at 50kph, rider 2 is on a dr650 going for blasts on the weekend, taking part in exhilarating off-road trail rides and even hits a few small jumps.

Is it retarded to think both riders could get injured in their own way and be claiming equal amounts from ACC?

Sure, that could happen. But the existing acc levy structure is obviously of much the same structure as GrayWolf's description of insurance. I.e. More power is more dangerous and power is measured in ccs.

Rider 1 on a 49cc scooter might fall off at the first roundabout and a rider 2 on a Hayabusa might have 40 years experience.
Is it retarded to think that ACC should charge a higher levy for 49cc scooters than for Hayabusas?

[Cam_Valk]

It is 1kg heavier and quoted power was only 53HP instead of 59HP which isn't quite true

Shhhhhhh.
Please just let me have this one
Dont want to accumulate another $360 worth of fines

[Ragingrob]

Sure, that could happen. But the existing acc levy structure is obviously of much the same structure as GrayWolf's description of insurance. I.e. More power is more dangerous and power is measured in ccs.

Rider 1 on a 49cc scooter might fall off at the first roundabout and a rider 2 on a Hayabusa might have 40 years experience.
Is it retarded to think that ACC should charge a higher levy for 49cc scooters than for Hayabusas?

And then if it were like insurance, Rider 1's ACC premiums would increase with every incident and Rider 2 would be enjoying a no-claims bonus. ACC levies should also be based on mileage of the rider like RUC.

But anyway, we've all had the ACC debate, getting a little off-topic!

Back to LAMS, definitely going to be interesting to see how some first time riders handle a few of those bigger bikes from the get-go!

[tigertim20]

So rider 1 is on a gsxr600 commuting to and from work in the city at 50kph, rider 2 is on a dr650 going for blasts on the weekend, taking part in exhilarating off-road trail rides and even hits a few small jumps.

Is it retarded to think both riders could get injured in their own way and be claiming equal amounts from ACC?

you are missing the point. the current rego costs are designed to hit those with more powerful bikes - and as for your example - you are describing off road riding, which is irrelevant as far as the cost of rego, the acc component money for which is supposed to cover incidents ON the road

[Ragingrob]

you are missing the point. the current rego costs are designed to hit those with more powerful bikes - and as for your example - you are describing off road riding, which is irrelevant as far as the cost of rego, the acc component money for which is supposed to cover incidents ON the road

I'm just fucking around mate. All bikes are 'dangerous' and ACC is a bloody tricky system that will never be able to make everybody happy.

[Dave-]

brands should start releasing 'special' New Zealand models which have *wink* *wink* 10 HP less *nudge* *nudge* than overseas models, then when tested... "oh your dyno showed 10 more HP than stated? cute, your dyno is different to ours" haha that'd be cool, but unlikely...

[tigertim20]

brands should start releasing 'special' New Zealand models which have *wink* *wink* 10 HP less *nudge* *nudge* than overseas models, then when tested... "oh your dyno showed 10 more HP than stated? cute, your dyno is different to ours" haha that'd be cool, but unlikely...

if you read through the list, I think youll find a few brands have already made those special *nudge nudge wink wink* bikes, and had them added to the list.
have a look and see how many you can pick, I found a few

[chansu]

LAMS is a godsend for me. My FXR150 was permanently garaged with expensive engine issues 10 months after I got it, and 6 months after I became a student again. Now that I'm graduated and working, I can get another bike (not fixing the FXR, don't really like it). I can probably have a full license in under a year, being over 25 and eligible to sit my restricted now, so I don't want an overpriced 250. I'd rather a 400-600 single or twin, which is exactly what the LAMS list is full of.

I wanted to chime in on discussion of a few bikes, since I'm doing some research on the LAMS list anyway. Most discussion I see is around the fastest I4 sports bikes, or the powerful trail bikes, neither of which interest me as much, so I thought I might mention some others.

• CB400 Super Four. Someone on here doubted whether it was LAMS legit. I would say it is, given that it is a "Honda CB400" as per the list, and works out at 113 kw/t.
• CB500 Twin. This one is a trap, my research puts it at 164 kw/t, yet it is technically on the list. Sucks because I'd love one.
• The rest of the Ducatis. My conspiracy theory around these is that Ducati on purpose registered only the 659 with NZTA for LAMS to push learners towards the $10k+ bike. If we are copying the Aus list, why else would they omit the slower Ducatis? I'm hoping someone manages to correct this, because it's criminal that I can't have a 400 Monster.
• DRZ400SM. While not specifically mentioned (like so so many bikes, *sigh*), it looks to be a winner. Power- and torque-to-weight are high, since it's so light.
• SRX400/600. These are also LAMS winners, super torquey but low enough power to be compliant. Apparently the 600 out-torques the 659 Duc, and at lower revs.
• XJR400. If you're okay with 4 cylinders, but want the naked styling, this is pretty close to the line at 147 kw/t.

There has been a lot of talk around "how will the cops tell" and such. I think what's more interesting is the insurance companies' perspective. I really don't want to be caught on a bike that my insurer can argue is not LAMS compliant, and insurers have a bigger incentive to nitpick than police do. This is the main reason that the LAMS list/rules vagueness bothers me. If I'm riding that CB500 Twin and a Ferrari gets tangled in it, am I covered? Would they insure me for a CB500 Twin in the first place?

Props to Ducatilover for actually compiling a list of things to send to NZTA, I may do the same although my knowledge of bikes is limited to what I can find on the intertubes. I also want to second whoever suggested some kind of wiki project, fantastic idea, I'd be keen to chip in.

EDIT: My CB400 info was wrong, most sources list about 52hp, making a 170kg bike 150kW/T flat, though another site had a recent model (2011 I think?) at a whopping 194kg. Also, our list mentions only a 395cc version, which only covers 1978-1981 models. The modern Super Four is 399cc, so technically not allowed . Another great bike on the Aus list that isn't on ours. Though I'm confident it will make it onto ours when Honda make it available here, since I read somewhere that it only made it to Aus because of LAMS (NSW list only allows 2008+ Super Fours, probably the first new models introduced).

[Ender EnZed]

DRZ400SM. While not specifically mentioned (like so so many bikes, *sigh*), it looks to be a winner. Power- and torque-to-weight are high, since it's so light.

The DRZ400 is on the list and so is a Suzuki "Super Motard" with 400cc. Given that no such bike exists I'd say it counts as a DRZ400SM.

[chansu]

The DRZ400 is on the list and so is a Suzuki "Super Motard" with 400cc. Given that no such bike exists I'd say it counts as a DRZ400SM.

True, I didn't click about the Super Motard entry, that's good news.

The vagueness here still bothers me, as does the "it's your fault if our list is wrong" clause they have. How can they expect Average Joe Learner to know the power-to-weight ratio of a bike he buys second hand? 145 kw/t is going to feel fast, as will 165. He's not going to know. The only way around this is for NZTA to take responsibility and say "we are confident in this list, if it's on here you can ride it (stock)."

Perhaps the insurance companies will have a much better list internally, and just won't insure me for a bike they think isn't LAMS compliant.

[RDjase]

Including KTM's 525 EXC, and a couple similar.

Wonder what contortions the formula underwent to slide those in there...

Yamaha IT 465 and 490 are on the list too..............

[Ender EnZed]

The vagueness here still bothers me, as does the "it's your fault if our list is wrong" clause they have. How can they expect Average Joe Learner to know the power-to-weight ratio of a bike he buys second hand? 145 kw/t is going to feel fast, as will 165. He's not going to know. The only way around this is for NZTA to take responsibility and say "we are confident in this list, if it's on here you can ride it (stock).

Here's the clause you're referring to:

Please note

Any motorcycle modified in a way that increases its power-to-weight ratio is no longer LAMS-compliant, regardless of whether it appears on the list.

If you are a rider on a learner or restricted motorcycle licence, it is your responsibility to ensure you are riding a LAMS-approved motorcycle, as produced by the manufacturer. If in doubt, seek confirmation from the manufacturer’s agent or dealership.

Failure to comply with the new rules may result in fines and demerit points.

It sounds to me like it's saying that "it is your responsibility to ensure that you're riding a LAMS-approved motorcycle", one that's on the list, "as produced by the manufacturer", that hasn't been modified to increase the power to weight ratio. Which is a bit different from saying not to trust the list.

Which doesn't help much with explaining why there's a bunch of bikes on there with over 200kW/T that have never been produced in any restricted form.

[FJRider]

Perhaps the insurance companies will have a much better list internally, and just won't insure me for a bike they think isn't LAMS compliant.

Why should they have a list ... ???

If you buy a bike ... and want to insure it. They will ... if you pay the premiums they ask for.

The legality of your use of the bike, seldom comes into it.