Modifying LAMS Motorcycles

[TheGremlin]

Apologies as I can see other thread on this issue but so far it seems undecided and I think I have new information to bring to the table. I haven't been able to get a clear answer and a people seem to all say different things on this so I thought I'd ask again.
Basically I'm looking at buying a mates Yamaha YZF-R3, and I'm on a learners, but it has a number of modifications including a after market exhaust system, a dynojet powercommander, YSS rear hydraulic shock, and a K&N air filter amonth other small tweaks.
According to NZTA's website learners approved bikes must be "in standard form as produced by the manufacturer. They cannot be modified in any way to increase the power-to-weight ratio." and further says "Any motorcycle modified in a way that increases or decreases its power-to-weight ratio is no longer LAMS-compliant, regardless of whether it appears on the list."
However, the Yamaha dealership I called said basically "It doesnt matter the police dont care about it and we all do it" and a number of people I have talked to said the same.
Additionally, and this is what I havent seen anyone mention, in the actual legislation, the Land Transport Act, it states something completely different to the NZTA site, it says aslong as its power-to-weight ratio doesn't exceed 150kW its fine to be LAMS, absolutely nothing saying just modifying it would invalidate the LAMS status. I also found an insurer (NAC) which was happy to offer insurance on the bike even though its modified, but I'm wary of this because it says in the policy that they wont cover damage to the bike if you are riding outside of license conditions.
Does anyone know for certain if this would still be a LAMS bike?

[layton]

Apologies as I can see other thread on this issue but so far it seems undecided and I think I have new information to bring to the table. I haven't been able to get a clear answer and a people seem to all say different things on this so I thought I'd ask again.
Basically I'm looking at buying a mates Yamaha YZF-R3, and I'm on a learners, but it has a number of modifications including a after market exhaust system, a dynojet powercommander, YSS rear hydraulic shock, and a K&N air filter amonth other small tweaks.
According to NZTA's website learners approved bikes must be "in standard form as produced by the manufacturer. They cannot be modified in any way to increase the power-to-weight ratio." and further says "Any motorcycle modified in a way that increases or decreases its power-to-weight ratio is no longer LAMS-compliant, regardless of whether it appears on the list."
However, the Yamaha dealership I called said basically "It doesnt matter the police dont care about it and we all do it" and a number of people I have talked to said the same.
Additionally, and this is what I havent seen anyone mention, in the actual legislation, the Land Transport Act, it states something completely different to the NZTA site, it says aslong as its power-to-weight ratio doesn't exceed 150kW its fine to be LAMS, absolutely nothing saying just modifying it would invalidate the LAMS status. I also found an insurer (NAC) which was happy to offer insurance on the bike even though its modified, but I'm wary of this because it says in the policy that they wont cover damage to the bike if you are riding outside of license conditions.
Does anyone know for certain if this would still be a LAMS bike?

If it has been modified it is no longer standard ... you kinds answered your own question. Mr plod probably wont give a damn as long as you aren't a smart ass and give him a reason to be a prick.

Ring the insurance company and ask exactly what you want to know( will you insure me on this motorcycle with minor modifications if i am in an accident) and get it in writing , then you are good to go.

[OddDuck]

+1 to the above, there's the law as written and then there's the law as actually enforced. As Layton suggests, having a completely honest conversation with your possible insurer and riding sensibly should see you right.

[pritch]

It seemed as if you were going to miss an important point but you got there right at the end. In the event of an accident the insurance company can refuse to pay. Most insurance companies, if you offer them an out, will take it.

As Dirty Harry Callahan said, "Do you feel lucky?"

[SaferRides]

When I changed insurers a few months ago, after reading the policy carefully I phoned up to inform them that my bike had a modified exhaust. The person on the phone sounded surprised, like no one bothers to tell us that.



Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[rastuscat]

In order for a bike to be LAMS approved, it must be on the NZTA LAMS approved list. Even if it's on the list, if its modified to increase power or decrease weight, or both, it invalidates the LAMS approval.

Most police haven't heard of LAMS. Unless they own a bike themselves, or are a traffic specialist, most dont know the rules around LAMS.

The shop is interested in nothing beyond how much money you spend on hitting the bike up. Their advice is self serving.

But they are right. In reality, nothing much will happen, at least in regard to the police. Insurance is a different story. A modified LAMS bike will give them the chance to walk away.

Your call.

BTW, pinching Gremlins moniker. Untidy.

[FJRider]

... Even if it's on the list, if its modified to increase power or decrease weight, or both, it invalidates the LAMS approval.

Actually it does not state THAT at all. What it DOES say is ... "They cannot be modified in any way to increase the power-to-weight ratio".

If there is no actual proof of either an increase in power (or weight loss) ... that would affect the bikes Power to weight ratio that allowed it to be LAM's approved ... it MUST be legal.

[Mike.Gayner]

I don't understand why this question keeps coming up - it's unambiguous, any LAMS bike that is modified is no longer a LAMS bike, end of story. The legislation defers to the Driver Licensing Rule in terms of these regulations, so you won't find it in the Act. Here is the quote from the Rule:


approved motorcycle means the make and model of any motorcycle that—
(a)

has an engine capacity of 250 cc or less, unless the Agency has prohibited the use of that make and model of motorcycle by notice published on the Agency’s Internet site; or
(b)

has an engine capacity of more than 250 cc but not more than 660 cc and a power-to-weight ratio of not more than 150 kilowatts per tonne and is approved for use by the Agency by notice published on the Agency’s Internet site; or
(c)

is powered by motive power wholly derived from an external source of electricity and is approved for use by the Agency by notice published on the Agency’s Internet site

So it's simple - whatever the website says, goes. The website is absolutely unambiguous - if it's modified, it's not LAMS, period.

[Mike.Gayner]

Actually it does not state THAT at all. What it DOES say is ... "They cannot be modified in any way to increase the power-to-weight ratio".

If there is no actual proof of either an increase in power (or weight loss) ... that would affect the bikes Power to weight ratio that allowed it to be LAM's approved ... it MUST be legal.

You are reading selectively, and have chosen to ignore this statement, in reference to LAMS-listed bikes.


these motorcycles must in standard form as produced by the manufacturer.

[FJRider]

You are reading selectively, and have chosen to ignore this statement, in reference to LAMS-listed bikes.

It's in black and white. As written in Legislation. Nothing is either ignored OR left out.

By way of example ... some motorcycles are "Older" models ... original items (such as exhaust's) are unobtainable. So aftermarket items ARE allowed. If they do not increase the Power to weight ratio. Whatever the actual reason you might like to fit aftermarket parts (looks, style, price, or simply it fits and works ) ... and the power to weight ratio is not altered ... it MUST be legal.

Hence the reason for the wording.

[layton]

It's in black and white. As written in Legislation. Nothing is either ignored OR left out.

By way of example ... some motorcycles are "Older" models ... original items (such as exhaust's) are unobtainable. So aftermarket items ARE allowed. If they do not increase the Power to weight ratio. Whatever the actual reason you might like to fit aftermarket parts (looks, style, price, or simply it fits and works ) ... and the power to weight ratio is not altered ... it MUST be legal.

Hence the reason for the wording.

An aftermarket pipe will be lighter and more then likely produce more horsepower therefore you have changed the power to weight ratio.
The bike in question is not an older model ...

[pritch]

Most aftermarket cans or systems are lighter than the original equipment. Less weight increases the power to weight ratio. Even if, as is likely, there is no significant increase in horsepower.

[rastuscat]

Most mods are designed to either increase power or reduce weight. By defacto, they are increasing the power to weight ratio.

Other reasons include saving lives. Like, loud pipes save lives.

Tui ad.

[FJRider]

An aftermarket pipe will be lighter and more then likely produce more horsepower therefore you have changed the power to weight ratio.
The bike in question is not an older model ...

Do the sums and figure it out yourself. ie: actual weight saved and the actual (if any) HP gained and see if it fits in the approved formula result.

To confirm any gains ... put it on the dyno before and after ... doing that may confirm if the the HP claims of the manufacturer were correct or not. Often they are not.

By your own words .. "more than likely" means not absolute. And to get a definite noticeable (possible) increase in power to the back wheel ... improvements to jetting are usually required to gain anything.

Most don't bother to re-jet and and are quite happy with the new sound of the exhaust (but still claim they notice a performance gain). Usually the actual (only ??) reason they want to "Upgrade" the exhaust system is "The better sound" ...

[layton]

As i said before the bike in question has had said works done. You miss the point. It HAS had parts swapped from OEM. and it WILL have less weight and more power.

And you are also correct in saying it stil fits the power to weight ratio but that was never the question, the bike has been modified from OEM.

Anyhow i am going to start a convo with a block of wood.

[pritch]

To confirm any gains ... put it on the dyno before and after ... doing that may confirm if the the HP claims of the manufacturer were correct or not. Often they are not.


There is a YouTube clip where the official Trump accessory full system(Vance and Hines?) is fitted to a 900cc Triumph twin for a gain of one solitary BHP on a recently calibrated dyno. That one BHP cost about $3,000.

BIKE magazine tested after market cans some years back, some produced less horses than the stock cans.

[Mike.Gayner]

Do the sums and figure it out yourself. ie: actual weight saved and the actual (if any) HP gained and see if it fits in the approved formula result.

To confirm any gains ... put it on the dyno before and after ... doing that may confirm if the the HP claims of the manufacturer were correct or not. Often they are not.

By your own words .. "more than likely" means not absolute. And to get a definite noticeable (possible) increase in power to the back wheel ... improvements to jetting are usually required to gain anything.

Most don't bother to re-jet and and are quite happy with the new sound of the exhaust (but still claim they notice a performance gain). Usually the actual (only ??) reason they want to "Upgrade" the exhaust system is "The better sound" ...

Are you being deliberately dense?

[SaferRides]

Anyhow i am going to start a convo with a block of wood.
:D


Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[FJRider]

Are you being deliberately dense?

See post #16 in this thread. Perhaps it's you that needs to change their thinking.

The listed HP on most motorcycles are true only if the tolerances on the entire engine are within design specifications ... as listed pre-production.

With mass production ... this seldom occurs. Some are down 3-4 HP before they get out of the factory.

If you want your motorcycle at full factory spec's and tolerances ... get it "Blueprinted" ...

In the old days of Mini 7's race car engines ... THAT was the only (officially sanctioned) way to get the allowable maximum horsepower.

[FJRider]

Anyhow i am going to start a convo with a block of wood.

Talking to yourself again ... ;)

[Jeff Sichoe]

Some NZ dude on ADVrider was talking about how his insurance wouldn't insure a LAMS bike if it has been 'modified'.

'Accessories' were allowed.

Example, a windscreen clipon can be removed without impacting the bikes overall operation - accessory
a new seat, however, if removed would render the bike unusable - modification

fuck knows if it's true but I guess it pays to check with insurance right?

edit -
https://advrider.com/f/threads/lams-approved-bike-with-mods.1377857/


"For the purposes of insuring a LAMS motorcycle, a modification is deemed to be a change to any parts that were originally supplied as part of the motorcycle by the manufacturer. If you have added something to the bike that has not involved the removal or modification of a part of the original motorcycle, then we deem it an accessory and this will not stop us from offering you Full Cover."

[TheGremlin]

Well if anyones still interested I ended up buying an R3 with a akrapovic full exhaust system.. And I just crashed it earlier this week with comprehensive insurance..
I'll let you guys know if they pay out.

[SaferRides]

Well if anyones still interested I ended up buying an R3 with a akrapovic full exhaust system.. And I just crashed it earlier this week with comprehensive insurance..
I'll let you guys know if they pay out.That could be interesting...

Good luck.

[Mike.Gayner]

Whether or not your insurer pays out has nothing to do with the legality. If the status of the bike was accurately disclosed then they will pay. Doesn't change the fact that a modified LAMS bike is not a LAMS bike.

[pritch]

There's always the possibility that a staff member of the insurance company is a member on KB?

[Jeeper]

There's always the possibility that a staff member of the insurance company is a member on KB?If all modifications were declared at the time of insurance sign up, it does not matter because that is how insurer did the underwriting.

[TheGremlin]

So update, they payed out in full! No mention of the akrapovic exhaust system.
Hope this helps anyone else worried about insurance/lams bikes, but I'd still be cautious as it may vary depending on assesor's knowledge.
Already purchased another modified r3 ;)

[FROSTY]

Forgetting the actual law for a moment and focusing on the intent of the law I can't see how an R3 can ever get to the sort of power a Lams SV650 or Gsr600 gets to. The intent of he HUGE change to the Learner legal bike law was to allow bigger capacity bikes to be learner bikes . but what biker in their right mind ever wants to stir up that hornets nest?

[FJRider]

Forgetting the actual law for a moment and focusing on the intent of the law I can't see how an R3 can ever get to the sort of power a Lams SV650 or Gsr600 gets to. The intent of he HUGE change to the Learner legal bike law was to allow bigger capacity bikes to be learner bikes . but what biker in their right mind ever wants to stir up that hornets nest?

I see a change to the wording on the NZTA site.


250cc to 660cc learner-approved motorcycles

The modifications below are intended to allow the user to customise/personalise their motorcycle without increasing the power to weight ratio. Some modifications will have a minor effect on power and others a minor effect on weight. However, these are not considered to be significant.
Allowed modifications

Slip on muffler/exhaust
Fairings/plastics
Wheels and tyres
Lights
Any other minor modification that would not affect power to weight ratio. e.g. handlebars or seats.

Note: Low Volume Vehicle (LVV) certification may be required for some modifications.

Note 2: It is likely a condition of your insurance policy to advise your insurer of any modifications that have been made to your motorcycle.


https://www.nzta.govt.nz/driver-licences/getting-a-licence/licences-by-vehicle-type/motorcycles/lams/


Pretty much what I've stated in my posts in this thread.

Now it's in writing and official.

[rambaldi]

I see a change to the wording on the NZTA site.




https://www.nzta.govt.nz/driver-licences/getting-a-licence/licences-by-vehicle-type/motorcycles/lams/


Pretty much what I've stated in my posts in this thread.

Now it's in writing and official.

Doesn't changing the lights set up fall foul of WoF regulations? Or did that kerfuffle peter out?

[FJRider]

Doesn't changing the lights set up fall foul of WoF regulations? Or did that kerfuffle peter out?

Light set-up has nothing whatsoever with LAM's regulations. There ARE requirements for lighting for a WOF.

There is NO stipulation the lighting fitted to your motorcycle ... HAS to be as the original manufacturer installed them.



Headlamps - Reasons for rejection.

https://vehicleinspection.nzta.govt.nz/virms/in-service-wof-and-cof/motorcycles/lighting/headlamps

Direction Indicator lamps - Reasons for rejection.

https://vehicleinspection.nzta.govt.nz/virms/in-service-wof-and-cof/motorcycles/lighting/direction-indicator-lamps

[rambaldi]

Light set-up has nothing whatsoever with LAM's regulations. There ARE requirements for lighting for a WOF.

There is NO stipulation the lighting fitted to your motorcycle ... HAS to be as the original manufacturer installed them.



Headlamps - Reasons for rejection.

https://vehicleinspection.nzta.govt.nz/virms/in-service-wof-and-cof/motorcycles/lighting/headlamps

Direction Indicator lamps - Reasons for rejection.

https://vehicleinspection.nzta.govt.nz/virms/in-service-wof-and-cof/motorcycles/lighting/direction-indicator-lamps

Cheers, I must have misunderstood what was going on with people complaining over their bikes failing WoFs due to changed lights

[FJRider]

Cheers, I must have misunderstood what was going on with people complaining over their bikes failing WoFs due to changed lights

Some clarification in the LAM's rules have been made lately. Some misunderstanding may have occurred with some WOF outlets. Or not.

There are minimum standards for lighting on a motorcycle. And some fail to achieve that.

[rambaldi]

Some clarification in the LAM's rules have been made lately. Some misunderstanding may have occurred with some WOF outlets. Or not.

There are minimum standards for lighting on a motorcycle. And some fail to achieve that.

The impression I had gotten was from people going a bit over the top with their lighting...

[FJRider]

The impression I had gotten was from people going a bit over the top with their lighting...

A few have been found foul of the law ... with spot lights that can be on when the lights are on dip.

[Laava]

It is in the wording. Spot lights can ONLY be on when high beam is on.
A light bar however is not allowed to be switched by the high beam. It must have a completely seperate circuit. So it can potentially be turned on with dip. It makes no sense, but that is what I nearly failed on last month in my ute. He let me go through but warned me.

[FJRider]

It is in the wording. Spot lights can ONLY be on when high beam is on.
A light bar however is not allowed to be switched by the high beam. It must have a completely seperate circuit. So it can potentially be turned on with dip. It makes no sense, but that is what I nearly failed on last month in my ute. He let me go through but warned me.

Some don't bother reading wording in the Reg's ... just hook everything up. Be using it ... and get a fail at the next WOF.

For a while I was doing quite a few night rides on the FJ ... and had fitted (by a sparky)a few spotlights. The downside was that to go from (seemingly) broad daylight on high beam to (seemingly) pitch black darkness on low beam was a pain. In the end I ditched the spotties ... and just upgraded the main bulb.