LAMS - worse than Novopay?

[MSTRS:Me]

Trying to fix an anomaly - am I pushing shit uphill?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To whom it may concern

I guess I'm not unique in complaining about the list of approved motorcycles, but I believe I have a genuine problem that should be addressed.
I have a Kawasaki EX500 1995 model sitting unused in my shed, and have had a number of people interested in buying it, who have been put off by it not being on the list. Kawasaki played around with cosmetics and changed the model name for some markets. Here is what Wikipedia says about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawasaki_Ninja_500R

Your list includes the EN500 and ER500, which are the same basic bike and share the same engine as the GPZ and EX500, along with the KLE500 which is a different style of bike but has the same engine.

I find it very odd that not all of these models are allowed. Especially when your list includes the EX650 (which is a newer, larger capacity machine) and the GPZ550 which is an older but high performance 4 cylinder model.

Please look at adding all Kawasaki 500 4 stroke, 2 cylinder (twin) derivatives to the approved list.

Thank you

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good morning,

Thank you for your email dated 3 February 2013.


Your motorcycle has not be requested to be added to the LAMS list. Therefore, if you believe your motorcycle should be on the LAMS-approved list and it fits the primary criteria of being between 251cc and 660cc, and less than 150 kilowatts per tonne, you will need to submit a formal application to the NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) for consideration. Vehicle specifications for the motorcycle should be gathered from your motorcycle manufacturer.


To apply you need to complete the attached application form and mail to: Assessments Team, NZ Transport Agency, Private Bag 6995, Wellington 6141, or email it to exemptions@nzta.govt.nz

Regards

Alex

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reference to my initial request below and your response below that...

Please find attached my application on your form, and the proof of claim on this model can be found here http://gpz500s.foobuzz.com/info/specifications/
where the pertinent info includes power: 52 bhp (39 kW) @ 9500 rpm (103 hp/L)
and dry weight: 373 lb except California (169 kg) 374 lb (170 kg) (1987-1993), 388 lb (176kg) (1994+)

As you will see, this particular motorcycle has a number of model designations which are essentially all the same as I stated in my initial email.

Please add the EX500 to the LAMS list to stop further confusion as regards the standard Kawasaki 500cc watercooled 4 stroke twin.

Thank you

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Exemptions applicant

This is an auto response message; please do not reply to this.


Thank you for your application for recognition of special interest vehicle/alternative documents/exemption.

Due to a high volume of exemptions applications NZTA hope to start processing your exemption within 10 working days. Depending on the type of exemption application, the processing itself could take another 10 working days.

If this takes longer because your query may need investigating, we will let you know.

Please Note: If you do not appear to have received a response within 20 working days, it would be advisable to check any 'Junk Mail' or SPAM filters which may be installed on your system, prior to any further contact. Our reply may have been erroneously blocked by such software. Alternatively, for help, advice and online services you can visit the website at www.nzta.govt.nz or call 0800 108 809

Regards

NZTA Exemption team

[Grashopper]

Will be interesting to see how long it will actually take and what their reply will be.

But yeah, the mills of bureaucracy grind slowly...

But altogether it doesn't sound too bad. Please keep us posted.

[george formby]

All things considered I think that is quite positive. Certainly not hasty but they did not say, nah,tough. It implies the LAM's list is a work in progress & we can contribute to that in the appropriate manner.

I remember the days when 125cc was the maximum capacity & a lot of those had to be restricted to meet the maximum power output limit. I think it was 12 horsepowers. (Ye Olde UK legislation)

[imdying]

Given you've ignored their clear instructions, I'm with George.

[Glowerss]

Just a couple of nitpickings.

The standard EX650 is *NOT* a lams bike. There's a restricted lams specific variant of it that is.

Also, some of the bike specs you listed, some of them are extremely borderline (39kw and 169kg puts it right at 150.8) and may or may not be listed. I tried to get the SV400 listed as a lams bike, and that was 150.9 or 151 even and was denied.


Anyway, when I submitted a few LAMS applications early on, I heard back from the approval guy within a day. It's possible that they're just dealing with a lot of rollover shit at the moment.

Considering how easy the application is to fill out and mail in, it's a relatively painless process. It's worlds more common sense then I thought it would be.

I don't think they did too bad a job with the whole LAMS system personally.

[neels]

There were really 2 options for the NZTA for this one;

a. Create a list of every motorcycle under 660cc ever made, and then check the specifications of each bike one by one, and eventually after several years publish a complete list which would be correct until next years bike models are announced.

b. Take a reasonable stab at making an initial list of bikes which are acceptable, and then have people apply to add others on a case by case basis, while having a wider range of bikes available immediately.

If I was paying the wages at the NZTA, I know which I'd go for.

[MSTRS:Me]

Given you've ignored their clear instructions, I'm with George.

Just how have I 'ignored their instructions"?

Just a couple of nitpickings.

The standard EX650 is *NOT* a lams bike. There's a restricted lams specific variant of it that is.

Also, some of the bike specs you listed, some of them are extremely borderline (39kw and 169kg puts it right at 150.8) and may or may not be listed. I tried to get the SV400 listed as a lams bike, and that was 150.9 or 151 even and was denied.


Anyway, when I submitted a few LAMS applications early on, I heard back from the approval guy within a day. It's possible that they're just dealing with a lot of rollover shit at the moment.

Considering how easy the application is to fill out and mail in, it's a relatively painless process. It's worlds more common sense then I thought it would be.

I don't think they did too bad a job with the whole LAMS system personally.

Fair enough. I agree LAMS is a better idea than a simple cc cut-off.
But I fail to see why an ER500 and an EN500 and a KLE500 are on the list, but the EX500 is not. They all have the same engine.

[FJRider]

Trying to fix an anomaly - am I pushing shit uphill?

It's your garden rake ... and your dime.


What have you got to lose .. ???

[FJRider]

Fair enough. I agree LAMS is a better idea than a simple cc cut-off.
But I fail to see why an ER500 and an EN500 and a KLE500 are on the list, but the EX500 is not. They all have the same engine.

Depending on the (LAM's) market they were intended for.

And ... if they were not imported as a normal production line of model designated for export from the manufacturering country.

[Glowerss]

Just how have I 'ignored their instructions"?



Fair enough. I agree LAMS is a better idea than a simple cc cut-off.
But I fail to see why an ER500 and an EN500 and a KLE500 are on the list, but the EX500 is not. They all have the same engine.

Short answer is weight. Some of those specs are RIGHT on the 150kw tonne. 5kg here and there makes all the difference between enough and too much. I doubt they all weigh exactly the same thing.

It also depends on what the manufacturers claimed in terms of specs. If kawasaki got a bit ambitious and claimed the bike was just a little bit lighter then it was, then that would be enough to push it out of the 150kw/tonne range as well.

[FJRider]

Short answer is weight. Some of those specs are RIGHT on the 150kw tonne. 5kg here and there makes all the difference between enough and too much. I doubt they all weigh exactly the same thing.

It also depends on what the manufacturers claimed in terms of specs. If kawasaki got a bit ambitious and claimed the bike was just a little bit lighter then it was, then that would be enough to push it out of the 150kw/tonne range as well.

Or claimed a bit more powerful ... to get in the sports market ...

[imdying]

Just how have I 'ignored their instructions"?

By referencing a specification source that is not the manufacturer.

Vehicle specifications for the motorcycle should be gathered from your motorcycle manufacturer.

the proof of claim on this model can be found here http://gpz500s.foobuzz.com/info/specifications/

That site doesn't even cite a reference source. I would've just binned your email, at least you got a reply.

[koba]

Just how have I 'ignored their instructions"?

This bit may become a sticking point:
"Vehicle specifications for the motorcycle should be gathered from your motorcycle manufacturer."

Not trying to be a dick, I just expect they will have a clear guideline on source material.
Which, given how much manufacturers lie about power and weight; is kinda silly.
In reality manufacturers are probably the least reliable source!

[Berries]

Given the responses from TPTB in the first post I can't see the link with Novopay?

[Glowerss]

By referencing a specification source that is not the manufacturer.




That site doesn't even cite a reference source. I would've just binned your email, at least you got a reply.

This bit may become a sticking point:
"Vehicle specifications for the motorcycle should be gathered from your motorcycle manufacturer."

Not trying to be a dick, I just expect they will have a clear guideline on source material.
Which, given how much manufacturers lie about power and weight; is kinda silly.
In reality manufacturers are probably the least reliable source!

They will actually take sites that list the specs as manufacturers have listed them. I don't know if they'll be quite happy with a random forum for the specs, however. I used bikez.com as a source for a few of them and they were fine with that.

They *DO* however, double check with the manufacturers as well.

Though I agree with koba, however, that it's a bit pointless considering how much bike makers lie like crazy about their bikes specs. Wet weights and RWHP would have been far more useful (and allowed a shitload more bikes in) but nevermind.