Safety bastards cripple my Guzzi

[madboy]

But the Suzuki Marauder doesn't have folding front pegs...

Not much chance of a marauder leaning over far enough to need them, eh?

This is why I bought a fairly modern bike with 1 year WOFs... I only have the anxiety leading up to, and depression following once a year

[Motu]

Guys..

I have a proper wof! The tech is a bloody decent guy with a sound knowledge of bikes and he was not shitting me or trying to dick me about. He's unusually helpful and has been VERY decent. The guy is a proper motorcyclist and feels as frustrated as the rest of us! We went through the book and I can appreciate that he is a difficult position interpretting this info... If he gets it wrong he gets into the poo!

I have ordered a new brake line (I had this from 2 sources and thus accept it). The foot pegs I think are part of a new set of regs.

Note that the Guzzi has period, aftermarket rear sets fitted from nearly new as the originals were the same on all models sports and touring and I hate the position with clipons.... I'll get a mate to whack up a new set no worries but it's annoying and pointless!

Cheers

ps - He did tell me there was a back track on the noise / muffler thing

There are no new regs,the VIRM is on amendment 2 from only a couple of months ago,footpegs only have to be adequate for the purpose and not damaged etc - if you modify your footpegs (like fit folding pegs in place of rigid pegs) you will need a modification cert.This guy is full of shit - make him SHOW you where in the VIRM it says you need folding pegs.The VIRM is the AVIs Bible,if it's in there in black and white you fail,if it's not there to CLEARLY interprete then you can't be failed!!

[WINJA]

GUZZIS ARE SHIT , HE DID THE RIGHT THING GET A JAPPER OR A DUKE

[XTC]

Not much chance of a marauder leaning over far enough to need them, eh?

This is why I bought a fairly modern bike with 1 year WOFs... I only have the anxiety leading up to, and depression following once a year

You are wrong there - a Marauder can scrape it's pegs changing lanes on the motorway...

[sels1]

[QUOTE=Big Dave]Toddle off somewhere else to get the WOF?QUOTE]

When I bought my current (2nd hand)bike I took it to the same testing station place I take the car. I dont think they do many bikes. A guy just hopped on it and checked the brakes, lights and horn and tyres. Didnt even notice that the brake light only worked on the foot brake. Sweet, I thought....
Then I took it to track day and at scruitineering they noticed my front wheel bearing was quite badly worn. I hadnt noticed - still getting used to the feel of a different bike etc so I decided then it was a good idea to get the wof done at a bike shop in future so at least twice a year a experienced mechanic checks my bike out - cheap insurance I feel.
I use the same guy as Paul and just had my wof done - no problems and he even fixed the switch on the front brake light for free. (I had bought some stuff off him and he just did it as part of the wof.) He is a good mechanic and a decent helpful sort of guy. Perhaps he just needs some help on the new law interpretations.....?

[madboy]

so I decided then it was a good idea to get the wof done at a bike shop in future so at least twice a year a experienced mechanic checks my bike out - cheap insurance I feel.

Exactly my thoughts. I leave my rego pretty much permanently on hold, but I never skip a WOF. A rego is tax (and I seldom leave it parked on public roads), but a WOF covers a few critical safety areas that an owner (particularly an amateur like me) just wouldn't pick up on.

In saying that - footpegs was a harsh call in this case I woulda thought, but I don't know the rules so I'll stay outta that one...

[Ixion]

There are no new regs,the VIRM is on amendment 2 from only a couple of months ago,footpegs only have to be adequate for the purpose and not damaged etc - if you modify your footpegs (like fit folding pegs in place of rigid pegs) you will need a modification cert.This guy is full of shit - make him SHOW you where in the VIRM it says you need folding pegs.The VIRM is the AVIs Bible,if it's in there in black and white you fail,if it's not there to CLEARLY interprete then you can't be failed!!

Here are the rules about footrests for warrants. Summarised, you have to have them, they must be secure and undamaged. That's it.

BUT - as Mr Motu notes, ANY modification to footrests requires certification. Which is bloody silly , because it catches all rear-sets (though, interestingly, not those where you could reverse the footrest, because there is nothing about changes to gearlevers or brake levers, though the latter might be caught under structure).

Problem for Mr Paul in NZ is that his bike was ALREADY modified , by teh fitment of teh aftermarket rearsets.

[Paul in NZ]

Here are the rules about footrests for warrants. Summarised, you have to have them, they must be secure and undamaged. That's it.

BUT - as Mr Motu notes, ANY modification to footrests requires certification. Which is bloody silly , because it catches all rear-sets (though, interestingly, not those where you could reverse the footrest, because there is nothing about changes to gearlevers or brake levers, though the latter might be caught under structure).

Problem for Mr Paul in NZ is that his bike was ALREADY modified , by teh fitment of teh aftermarket rearsets.

Fark!

Just for a laugh! Where would I get my foot rests certified? While the footrest are modified they are a 100 times more solid than the factory ones and I know the mech didn't realise they were not factory fitted!

[Ixion]

Fark!

Just for a laugh! Where would I get my foot rests certified? While the footrest are modified they are a 100 times more solid than the factory ones and I know the mech didn't realise they were not factory fitted!

No idea where you'd get them certified I'm afraid. But if the tester doesn't realise they are not original (ie on the bike when first NZ registered), then just point out the requirements to him. Present ? Tick. Secure ? Tick. Undamaged, uncorroded ? Tick. That's all they need.

Nothing at all about having to be folding.

Incidentally when did this whole thing about folding footrests come into the picture? And why?

I remember when the first trail bikes came out with folding footrests. Road bikes then ALWAYS had solid. On trailies folding made some sense, cos if you hit a log, boulder, troll etc you didn't bend the footrest. Which is all it was for, nothing about safety. Just not damaging things. Like they had folding gear lever sticky out bits, for the same reason

So when did they start putting them on road bikes ? And why ? Cos I don't usually hit logs, boulders etc on a road bike.

Is it because some brain damaged idiot thought it had something to do with footpegs scraping (" Oh oh OMG the foot pegs might scrape on the road and the whole bike will cartwheel OMG" I can just see it now) ?

[Pixie]

Exactly my thoughts. I leave my rego pretty much permanently on hold, but I never skip a WOF. A rego is tax (and I seldom leave it parked on public roads), but a WOF covers a few critical safety areas that an owner (particularly an amateur like me) just wouldn't pick up on.

In saying that - footpegs was a harsh call in this case I woulda thought, but I don't know the rules so I'll stay outta that one...

Or you could get to know your bike intimately and learn the basics of what constitutes a safe bike ,then you wouldn't be putting your safety in the hands of some monkey at a testing station as infrequently as once a year.

How many wof inspectors road test the bikes as the regs require?

[zadok]

Makes me wonder if it isn't a concerted effort to rid the roads of older machinery. Probably trying to bluff people into thinking of getting rid of the old. Out with the old, in wit the new.

[Pixie]

Next year the clark govt plan to bring in new wof regs at the advice of acc,requiring all motorcycles to be tested to destruction in order to pass a wof inspection

[Motu]

How many wof inspectors road test the bikes as the regs require?

Was always a requirement for cars,but testing stations never did,I was never happy about that...but all such wording was removed,a road test is no longer required.It was alway optional on a bike....most of my bike WoFs are for friends or people I know well,they often say take it for a spin,and I often do....but not all the time,I honour their love of their bike.They know their bike better than I do,are probably more fussy than me even,not much I can pull them up on and they often point out things they aren't happy with and will it come up in a WoF.If the ego is huge and the attitude is ''no one rides MY bike'',then I insist on a ride and step back to watch the huffing and puffing - more fun than riding their shit box any day!

Sooooooo,your bike was modified in the first place Paul? and you were trying to slip it past the inspector eh? I think it's time you fessed up and handed yourself in to the authorites - pity I live so far away...I'd come around and do a Citizens Arrest,after all,it's the least I could do for our community..../

[Ixion]

...I'd come around and do a Citizens Arrest,after all,it's the least I could do for our community..../

Plead the unwritten law, mate. ie that there should be exemptions from everything for Guzzi's cos they are cool bikes (shaft drive and V twin, gotta be good !)

[Ixion]

Took a sidecar combo into the Council testing station once for a WOF. Blew the testers mind. He couldn't figure out whether to test the bike and chair separatly, test them together as a bike, or try to test it like a car. And he couldn't ride a sidecar, so he couldn't figure out how to test the brakes (and it had a sidecar brake too ! ) . Or how to check the forks or front wheel bearings (no putting THAT on the centre stand).

In the finish he just wallied about a bit, said "Well, I gues sit looks OK" and gave me my warrant.

I don't think there's anything even today to force you to get a warrant on a sidecar (detachable variety) . You can take the bike in without the chair, get a WOF, then connect the chair.