Holy Shit the LAMS list guys DO care!

[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!

[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 If you reach 130 do you get to ride a ZXR14 on LAMS ?

[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 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 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

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

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 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 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