Holy Shit the LAMS list guys DO care!

[Glowerss]

Color me fucking surprised. I submitted the SV400 to be LAMS approved some ~4-5 months ago, and was told that it JUST missed out ( 150.8 kw/tonne or something.) Was a bit gutted but thems the breaks amirite?

Opened my E-mail today, to find out of the blue, this.

Good morning Brian

I have reviewed the information that you supplied for the Suzuki SV400. All of the weights that are listed for the bike are the dry weights, if we take the 16l of fuel into account then we can add another 11kg to the bikes weight and this will make it LAMS compliant.

Power kW
Tare weight + 90 kg

kw per tonne
39
268
1000
145.5223881

The Suzuki SV400 and SV400S will be added to the approved LAMS list in the May update.

Regards
__________________________________________________ ________

Graeme Swan

Nothing like a little common sense in the morning to brighten your day! :Punk::Punk::Punk::Punk:

[Monkfish]

WOW the system actually worked.

I bet ya wernt expecting that one were ya.

[ducatilover]

What colour is fucking surprised?
I may have to look at a few more bikes to add to the list then? I think the Honda Bros650 may just sneak in with fluids. Not that it's a good learner bike or anything

[The End]

So what happens if you get pulled over by the :Police: on fuel reserve?

[Glowerss]

What colour is fucking surprised?
I may have to look at a few more bikes to add to the list then? I think the Honda Bros650 may just sneak in with fluids. Not that it's a good learner bike or anything

The watercooled CB400 superfours would squeeze in with fluids at 151kw/tonne dry. The bros650 wouldn't, I don't think. It's 160kw/tonne without fluids.

It does beg the question of whether or not they're going to take fluids into account from now on or not. It should let a few more solid bikes squeek in if they are. Submit away, I say! The chap who manages the LAMS list seems, on the whole, a rather good sort.

[bluninja]

Perhaps they should also take into account the weight of the rider :innocent: that would make LAMS really interesting.

Well done on getting a government system to "work".

[ducatilover]

The watercooled CB400 superfours would squeeze in with fluids at 151kw/tonne dry. The bros650 wouldn't, I don't think. It's 160kw/tonne without fluids.

It does beg the question of whether or not they're going to take fluids into account from now on or not. It should let a few more solid bikes squeek in if they are. Submit away, I say! The chap who manages the LAMS list seems, on the whole, a rather good sort.

I wouldn't have thought the bros would have that much of a power to weight? They're no faster in a straight line than a watercooled CB400 (Eh Bogan...)
Taking fluids in to account may be fun, some dry weights are without fork oil etc


Sent from my PC using things and stuff

[Gareth123]

What info did you submit to them?

Where did you submit it too?

Did you need to provide sources for your information?

I ask this because I have a old cm400 custom that comes in under 150kw/tonne really easily but isn't on the list and my friend wants to buy it as his first bike.

[Stirts]

It does beg the question of whether or not they're going to take fluids into account from now on or not.


Perhaps they should also take into account the weight of the rider :innocent: that would make LAMS really interesting.

Sweet, I am prone to retain water from time to time, and often have a full bladder. And what about the boys who have not had a bit in a while, surely the fluid in their ballsack should count too?

[Big Dave]

The loquaciousness of the LAMS.

[Glowerss]

What info did you submit to them?

Where did you submit it too?

Did you need to provide sources for your information?

I ask this because I have a old cm400 custom that comes in under 150kw/tonne really easily but isn't on the list and my friend wants to buy it as his first bike.

There's an easy ass form to fill in. http://www.nzta.govt.nz/licence/getting/motorcycles/approved-motorcycles.html#applying if you go there you'll find it.

Find a few websites quoting the same specs for the bike, calculate the power/weight ratio using the formula they've provded (power(kw) divided by weight (kg) + 90)) and email the form in. It took me all of about 5 minutes to do.

Guy got back to me the next day. Relatively painless considering you're still dealing with the NZTA.

[Tigadee]

Ha! Ha! Well done, sir!

[Grashopper]

I'm waiting for them to ask for the weight of the rider...:wacko:

Hm, that little superfour is on my list of potential new bikes

Anyway, good to hear that it worked out.

[pritch]

These days Honda quote their weights as "ready to ride" or similar. So you can't add anything.

Some other manufactureres may be doing this, but some are still quoting dry weights. You'd need to have read the small print before you fill in any forms.

Still it's nice to see the beaurocrats showing an interest, I hope they can keep it up.

[Madness]

And what about the boys who have not had a bit in a while, surely the fluid in their ballsack should count too?

Am I going to have to start calling Gordy Gumboot?

:blink:

[baffa]

Good to hear they are using common sense once in awhile.


What info did you submit to them?

Where did you submit it too?

Did you need to provide sources for your information?

I ask this because I have a old cm400 custom that comes in under 150kw/tonne really easily but isn't on the list and my friend wants to buy it as his first bike.

Modified bikes are not allowed for learners, so that might not work.

I like the idea of taking rider weight into account, but the problem is they would have to sticker the vehicles with silly sht such as "This vehicle is only rider legal if you weight upwards of 80 kg" or something silly.

[Daffyd]

Obviously Andy Knutsacks didn't have a say in it.

[shafty]

Well done Glowerss - great news and worth applying, 'On ya!:yes:

[Gareth123]

Modified bikes are not allowed for learners, so that might not work.


I wish it was a modified bike. Its all completely standard the way they made it.

[bluninja]

I like the idea of taking rider weight into account, but the problem is they would have to sticker the vehicles with silly sht such as "This vehicle is only rider legal if you weight upwards of 80 kg" or something silly.

So over 80 kgs is something silly :eek5: If you reach 130 do you get to ride a ZXR14 on LAMS ? :innocent:

[SPman]

The loquaciousness of the LAMS.
Better than the Silence of the LAMS.......

[Ender EnZed]

I like the idea of taking rider weight into account.

They already allow 90kg for the rider, which is pretty generous.

[arcane12]

So what happens if you get pulled over by the :Police: on fuel reserve?

I'd mention that rider plus gear (in my case) is just a wee bit over the 90kg allowed, so I'm fine!




Modified bikes are not allowed for learners, so that might not work.



Modified is ok, if you have not increased the power to weight ratio. So you could choose to detune a LAMS bike or add an extra 10kg of weight in bits and bobs without making it illegal. But if you take off the factory tool kit ... woo you're in trouble! <_<

[Jantar]

Perhaps they should also take into account the weight of the rider :innocent: that would make LAMS really interesting.

Well done on getting a government system to "work".

They do. They take 90 kg as a standard rider weight. Too bad if you weigh more, but damn good if you are a lightweight.

[bluninja]

They do. They take 90 kg as a standard rider weight. Too bad if you weigh more, but damn good if you are a lightweight.

I'd be screwed...0% bodyfat would still see me at 94....just as well I got my full :)

[Maha]

I'd be screwed...0% bodyfat would still see me at 94....just as well I got my full :)

Wouldn't be just a arse pain to go through this LAMs shit...I would probably just ride it out (pun intended) till I got my full...which I also have.

[ducatilover]

Just to touch on this one again.
But the LAMS states that you must use the tare weight of the bike + 90kg for rider/gear etc.So they've fucked their own rules by doing this.


Sent from nowhere near a bureaucrat

[bogan]

I wouldn't have thought the bros would have that much of a power to weight? They're no faster in a straight line than a watercooled CB400 (Eh Bogan...)
Taking fluids in to account may be fun, some dry weights are without fork oil etc


Sent from my PC using things and stuff

Well, they're a little bit faster in a straight line, and like a majillion times less beige...

184kg wet + 90 rider gives 274kg total, for a kW threshold of 41.1kW or 55hp (its 150kW per tonne right)

But, they were made in an era when honda took some liberties on the claimed power, with somewhere around 57hp iirc, in reality stockers are more likely to make 47. They also appeared to have taken liberties with the weight claims, or got it really really really dry :p

Sent from the stock as instrument cluster of my not even modified a little bit honda bros.

[ducatilover]

Well, they're a little bit faster in a straight line, and like a majillion times less beige...

184kg wet + 90 rider gives 274kg total, for a kW threshold of 41.1kW or 55hp (its 150kW per tonne right)

But, they were made in an era when honda took some liberties on the claimed power, with somewhere around 57hp iirc, in reality stockers are more likely to make 47. They also appeared to have taken liberties with the weight claims, or got it really really really dry :p

Sent from the stock as instrument cluster of my not even modified a little bit honda bros.

I reckon we should have had a drag race :bleh: the CB would be faster right up top. Not anywhere else though

I think they claim 178kg dry? Which, to pick big fat hairs, is the tare weight isn't it?
And if we pick the lowest power models, it might almost fit?
http://www.arnold-talmon.com/images/hawkspecs.jpg claimed 58hp
There's another spec sheet claiming 38hp, but I think that was a dyno run on a Cali model?

38 hp is good, boom, legal Bros. Yeah, yours is bog stock, fo sho bro


Sent from a winning place.

[Glowerss]

I reckon we should have had a drag race :bleh: the CB would be faster right up top. Not anywhere else though

I think they claim 178kg dry? Which, to pick big fat hairs, is the tare weight isn't it?
And if we pick the lowest power models, it might almost fit?
http://www.arnold-talmon.com/images/hawkspecs.jpg claimed 58hp
There's another spec sheet claiming 38hp, but I think that was a dyno run on a Cali model?

38 hp is good, boom, legal Bros. Yeah, yours is bog stock, fo sho bro


Sent from a winning place.

Doesn't seem like too big a difference from the Bros 400 and the Bros 650 then?

Apparently, if there's a bike near or slightly above the limit of LAMS, all you need to go is get a major dealership to want it LAMS approved and then BAM! Like magic it gets approved :rolleyes: :weird:

[Gremlin]

But, they were made in an era when honda took some liberties on the claimed power, with somewhere around 57hp iirc, in reality stockers are more likely to make 47. They also appeared to have taken liberties with the weight claims, or got it really really really dry :p
I don't think the manufacturer ever envisaged a situation where people would want the bikes to be heavier and less powerful :killingme

[ducatilover]

Doesn't seem like too big a difference from the Bros 400 and the Bros 650 then?

Apparently, if there's a bike near or slightly above the limit of LAMS, all you need to go is get a major dealership to want it LAMS approved and then BAM! Like magic it gets approved :rolleyes: :weird:

The 400 was 33hp at the crank. I think Bogan has said to me his 650 did 46ish at the rubber. My rather interesting one I had ages ago managed 71 at the wheel. :drool:

lol that's how it's done bro, let's get RG500s on the list eh? :headbang:


Sent from my avocado and feta sammich

[arcane12]

Just to touch on this one again.
But the LAMS states that you must use the tare weight of the bike + 90kg for rider/gear etc.So they've fucked their own rules by doing this.


Sent from nowhere near a bureaucrat

Where are you getting this from? I'm curious. I am guessing it could be in the law itself? On the website is mentions they use the weight the manufacturer gives for that model. Which could be wet or dry weight. More often it's probably dry weight, but that would change from case to case. I am not sure what tare includes as standard definitions say unladen. So no cargo. Gas might not be included, as it's a consumable, but arguably oil could be.

I guess that means if you have an edge case bike you might be best to keep an eye out as it could be taken off the list like the V-strom was.

[ducatilover]

Where are you getting this from?

I thought I already posted this here, but http://www.nzta.govt.nz/licence/getting/docs/lams-faqs.pdf
Page three, second question. :niceone:



Sent from somewhere doing stuff

[Glowerss]

Where are you getting this from? I'm curious. I am guessing it could be in the law itself? On the website is mentions they use the weight the manufacturer gives for that model. Which could be wet or dry weight. More often it's probably dry weight, but that would change from case to case. I am not sure what tare includes as standard definitions say unladen. So no cargo. Gas might not be included, as it's a consumable, but arguably oil could be.

I guess that means if you have an edge case bike you might be best to keep an eye out as it could be taken off the list like the V-strom was.

On the NZTA FAQ, and on the form you submit to get a bike added to lams, in both cases it makes mention of Tare (dry) weights.

It's written into several places, but most notably the two mentioned above.

Which is why it's a bit dodgy they're letting in borderline cases with wet weights, but hey, more choice is good I suppose! :banana:

[arcane12]

I thought I already posted this here, but http://www.nzta.govt.nz/licence/getting/docs/lams-faqs.pdf
Page three, second question. :niceone:



Sent from somewhere doing stuff

Cheers. Ok, and I hate to nit pick here, but I am still looking for a description of Tare weight that excludes fuel, etc. As far as I know Tare =/= Dry. I will update if I find something. Or if they do mention dry weight.


--edit--

I have found this:

unladen (also called unloaded, tare or kerb) weight

It's to do with towing trailers, but it seems to suggest that according to the NZTA tare=kerb (which is wet weight). So maybe they are right to include that bike? Why are there so many word for the same thing! sigh.

[ducatilover]

Cheers. Ok, and I hate to nit pick here, but I am still looking for a description of Tare weight that excludes fuel, etc. As far as I know Tare =/= Dry. I will update if I find something. Or if they do mention dry weight.

Tare weight is an empty vessel, container and/or vehicle.
But after searching I find no standardised way for measuring a bike's tare weight.

Which means I can now make anything eligible. Because it weighs a million on Jupiter.


Sent from Edward De Bono's thinking hats

[Glowerss]

Tare weight is an empty vessel, container and/or vehicle.
But after searching I find no standardised way for measuring a bike's tare weight.

Which means I can now make anything eligible. Because it weighs a million on Jupiter.


Sent from Edward De Bono's thinking hats

When I was submitting bikes to be LAMS approved a few months back, it explicitly said Tare(dry) Weight on the form.

It would seem that the new form simply has Tare weight on it.

It would seem as though you could send in bikes that the manufacturer has listed as wet weight, and get them approved now. Certainly going by the SV400 email, it would seem as though they are taking into account wet weights rather then dry.

Now, if only they'd take power at the wheel rather then the crank, and we'd be cooking :headbang:

[ducatilover]

When I was submitting bikes to be LAMS approved a few months back, it explicitly said Tare(dry) Weight on the form.

It would seem that the new form simply has Tare weight on it.

It would seem as though you could send in bikes that the manufacturer has listed as wet weight, and get them approved now. Certainly going by the SV400 email, it would seem as though they are taking into account wet weights rather then dry.

Now, if only they'd take power at the wheel rather then the crank, and we'd be cooking :headbang:

Ah, but to get a wet weight you will have to measure it yourself, because the manufacturers have no standard way of getting their dry weights.
So, bike at weigh station and then a quick dyno... fill the tyres, motor and tank with lead.


Sent from my genius

[huff3r]

Tare = Unladen
Uk definition of Unladen is ready to go, but without fuel or batteries (if electric powered).

We normally steal lots of rules and definitions from the pommies so I'd guess Tare includes Oil but not Fuel, which is the same as the "Unladen Mass (Weight)" we use for Aircraft under NZ CAA rules.

So they should have added around 1-3kg for oil but nothing for fuel?

[arcane12]

Or if they didn't have an arbitary CC cutoff still. I understand they don't want learners running around on giant bikes (I think a 256kg 883 HD will get in? You could probably find even heavier HD's as well that would get in) but perhaps a weight restriction would have been a better idea?

--edit--

Even better (not that I'm saying I want a HD, they are just easy pickings) a 305Kg Street Bob

[Maki]

I have reviewed the information that you supplied for the Suzuki SV400. All of the weights that are listed for the bike are the dry weights, if we take the 16l of fuel into account then we can add another 11kg to the bikes weight and this will make it LAMS compliant.

Power kW
Tare weight + 90 kg

kw per tonne
39
268
1000
145.5223881

The Suzuki SV400 and SV400S will be added to the approved LAMS list in the May update.

Regards
__________________________________________________ ________

Graeme Swan

Nothing like a little common sense in the morning to brighten your day! :Punk::Punk::Punk::Punk:


Does this mean that the R6 will be LAMS approved if I add a 400l fuel tank? :rolleyes:

[reggie1198]

How much fuel will an 1198 require then, I did the maths and am getting about 770kw per ton.
And the seat is to small to carry a bloke fat enough to make this a LAMS approved bike. And the ton of fuel could make her a bit top heavy

[ducatilover]

How much fuel will an 1198 require then, I did the maths and am getting about 770kw per ton.
And the seat is to small to carry a bloke fat enough to make this a LAMS approved bike. And the ton of fuel could make her a bit top heavy

Just ride it in the wet, or give it time. It's Italian :2thumbsup

[PeloNZ]

This SV400 will be a pretty sweet lams bike. I have added a list of future lams bikes to the wiki here: http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/wiki/LAMS#Potential_LAMS_bikes

[conadz]

Thought I would ask here instead of making a new thread, does anybody have any incite as to why ALL of the 250 2t race replicas are banned? Im more than aware that some can be stupidly powerful and the power band of a 2t can be particularly dangerous for learners.

Buuuuuut, the lightest and most powerful production version of the Honda nsr250 comes out with a dry power to weight ratio of 147kw per tonne, well within the lams specifications?

[Gremlin]

Im more than aware that some can be stupidly powerful and the power band of a 2t can be particularly dangerous for learners.
You've answered your own question... they are not suitable for learning.

[conadz]

You've answered your own question... they are not suitable for learning.

Neither are a whole heap of bikes (the yamaha fzr400 springs to mind) but thats not what I was asking. To clarify is there a direct rule that governs the 250 2ts or because its under the p.w ratio can I apply to have the nsr removed?

[Gremlin]

To clarify is there a direct rule that governs the 250 2ts or because its under the p.w ratio can I apply to have the nsr removed?
http://www.nzta.govt.nz/licence/getting/docs/lams-list.pdf

It's on the prohibited list.

edit: Only exception is if you owned one prior to LAMS coming into effect, and then you can apply for an exemption.

[2smokes]

I read the LAMS list thinking WTF. Hands up who's going to let a 16yo learner ride their RE5.

I,m going out for a wankel

[superjackal]

So what happens if you get pulled over by the :Police: on fuel reserve?

Won't matter - it's now "approved".

[anthraxnz]

Won't matter - it's now "approved".

how can the police tell, besides memorising a changing list? I think in some counties your REGO has LAMS or something on it. Is that the case here?

[arcane12]

Nope, nothing on the Rego. I guess it's like other stuff they might not be able to tell from a glance, eg. roadworthiness. If they think it's not legal they will write the ticket, and then you'll have to prove it was wrong. But if you're not riding like a loon it shouldn't be an issue. Of course if your insurance company figures it out after a claim, they may choose not to cover you. A number of people have said they would only do that if they thought it was a factor in the claim. (I guess if a 1000cc bike gets stolen from a learner, they can't not pay out :) )