VFR400 vs RVF400 vs CBR400RR vs FZR400 LAMS logic?

[Yamahardman]

Hello everybody, this is my first thread in this forum, haha.

My flatmate is looking at getting a VFR400 off trademe, but he is on his learner license, and has gotten a bit bored with his GB500tt. He's a bit worried if it's illegal to ride a VFR400 on his current licence. Now, I know that VFR400's aren't on the list, neither are CBR400RR's, but this is where things get a little funny.

While looking on the LAMS list, I noticed that it was okay to own a RVF400 and a FZR400.
*RVF400- 60hp, 165kg dry.
*FZR400- 59hp, 157kg dry.

Then there's both the CBR400RR and the VFR400
*CBR400RR- 59hp, 162kg dry.
*VFR400- 59hp, 165kg dry.

This all seems a bit odd to me, and I was wondering, and I think I'm coming to the main point of this thread when I ask this, BUUUUT-

Are, VFR400'S and CBR400RR'S illegal or just not specified on the list,- ie, forgotten or overlooked? Because with those power to weight comparisons, they should also be on the list.

Also, to specify myself a bit more I am talking about all those respective models being the late 80's/ early 90's ones.

Thanks everyone! Knowledge and replies appreciated!!

[mossy1200]

rvf and fzr shouldn't be there but when searching the net the inflated manufactures figures exclude bikes that should be and more accurate rear wheel figures located in another location include bikes that shouldn't be there. I guess if you want something added send information link that serves your cause the best.

[Glowerss]

The problem is manufacturer claimed specifications. The RVF is quoted from honda as something like 165kg and 38 KW which puts it just under the 150kw/tonne LAMS limit.

The VFR is quoted from honda at 44kw and 165kg which is much too high to fit under LAMS. The same goes with the CBR400.

The FZR400 is only the early FZR400s , and again it just squeeks by.

The VFR and CBR400s can't be LAMS approved because they don't fall under 150kw/tonne. The RVF realistically shouldn't be LAMS approved, but for one reason or another Honda under quoted its HP and so it JUST squeezes btw.

TL;DR Your mate can't ride the VFR or CBR400 and they will never be LAMS approved.

[tigertim20]

as mentioned some bikes are on the list that shouldnt be, because manufacturers didnt provide accurate official stats on their bikes. I understand the RVF400 figures were quoted low because of something to do with japanese domestic market rules at the time, so hence it 'officially' fits the requirments

There are definitely other bikes that fit the criteria, but that are not on the list. If you find a bike that you think does fit the criteria but that is not on the list, you can contact them with information, and have it added to the list. there was a thread on here a few weeks ago by someone who has successfully done this already, so it can be done. The list will need to be updated regularly anyway because of new models coming out that fit the requirements.

[DamianW]

My flatmate is looking at getting a VFR400 off trademe, but he is on his learner license, and has gotten a bit bored with his GB500tt.

Sending PM.

[rastuscat]

Don't try to find logic in it. If it's on the list it's legal, if it's not, it's not.

Logic and the law have long since parted company.

[SMOKEU]

Don't try to find logic in it. If it's on the list it's legal, if it's not, it's not.

Logic and the law have long since parted company.

I thought that law = logic, because that's what the government told me.

[Piebald]

Sorry to revive this but I own a FZR400 R model which has the 1WG motor. Im pretty sure the previous models were 1WG too, but I could be wrong. Ive tried to use the formula a few times and always end up with a figure around 177kw per ton, thats from 59hp, 155kg dry and 90kg rider (as per website)
I could have done my calculating wrong but that puts my bike substantially over the limit. Do I just play dumb? everyone without a brain thinks its a 250 when they see it anyway :P

Anyone know of any other LAMS bikes that are more powerful?

[Akzle]

rvf. cbr, vfr, zxr. In that order.