Holy Shit the LAMS list guys DO care!

[Gremlin]

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

I don't think the manufacturer ever envisaged a situation where people would want the bikes to be heavier and less powerful

[ducatilover]

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

The 400 was 33hp at the crank. I think Bogan has said to me his 650 did 46ish at the rubber. My rather interesting one I had ages ago managed 71 at the wheel.

lol that's how it's done bro, let's get RG500s on the list eh?


Sent from my avocado and feta sammich

[arcane12]

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

Where are you getting this from? I'm curious. I am guessing it could be in the law itself? On the website is mentions they use the weight the manufacturer gives for that model. Which could be wet or dry weight. More often it's probably dry weight, but that would change from case to case. I am not sure what tare includes as standard definitions say unladen. So no cargo. Gas might not be included, as it's a consumable, but arguably oil could be.

I guess that means if you have an edge case bike you might be best to keep an eye out as it could be taken off the list like the V-strom was.

[ducatilover]

Where are you getting this from?

I thought I already posted this here, but http://www.nzta.govt.nz/licence/gett.../lams-faqs.pdf
Page three, second question.



Sent from somewhere doing stuff

[Glowerss]

Where are you getting this from? I'm curious. I am guessing it could be in the law itself? On the website is mentions they use the weight the manufacturer gives for that model. Which could be wet or dry weight. More often it's probably dry weight, but that would change from case to case. I am not sure what tare includes as standard definitions say unladen. So no cargo. Gas might not be included, as it's a consumable, but arguably oil could be.

I guess that means if you have an edge case bike you might be best to keep an eye out as it could be taken off the list like the V-strom was.

On the NZTA FAQ, and on the form you submit to get a bike added to lams, in both cases it makes mention of Tare (dry) weights.

It's written into several places, but most notably the two mentioned above.

Which is why it's a bit dodgy they're letting in borderline cases with wet weights, but hey, more choice is good I suppose!

[arcane12]

I thought I already posted this here, but http://www.nzta.govt.nz/licence/gett.../lams-faqs.pdf
Page three, second question.



Sent from somewhere doing stuff

Cheers. Ok, and I hate to nit pick here, but I am still looking for a description of Tare weight that excludes fuel, etc. As far as I know Tare =/= Dry. I will update if I find something. Or if they do mention dry weight.


--edit--

I have found this:

unladen (also called unloaded, tare or kerb) weight

It's to do with towing trailers, but it seems to suggest that according to the NZTA tare=kerb (which is wet weight). So maybe they are right to include that bike? Why are there so many word for the same thing! sigh.

[ducatilover]

Cheers. Ok, and I hate to nit pick here, but I am still looking for a description of Tare weight that excludes fuel, etc. As far as I know Tare =/= Dry. I will update if I find something. Or if they do mention dry weight.

Tare weight is an empty vessel, container and/or vehicle.
But after searching I find no standardised way for measuring a bike's tare weight.

Which means I can now make anything eligible. Because it weighs a million on Jupiter.


Sent from Edward De Bono's thinking hats

[Glowerss]

Tare weight is an empty vessel, container and/or vehicle.
But after searching I find no standardised way for measuring a bike's tare weight.

Which means I can now make anything eligible. Because it weighs a million on Jupiter.


Sent from Edward De Bono's thinking hats

When I was submitting bikes to be LAMS approved a few months back, it explicitly said Tare(dry) Weight on the form.

It would seem that the new form simply has Tare weight on it.

It would seem as though you could send in bikes that the manufacturer has listed as wet weight, and get them approved now. Certainly going by the SV400 email, it would seem as though they are taking into account wet weights rather then dry.

Now, if only they'd take power at the wheel rather then the crank, and we'd be cooking

[ducatilover]

When I was submitting bikes to be LAMS approved a few months back, it explicitly said Tare(dry) Weight on the form.

It would seem that the new form simply has Tare weight on it.

It would seem as though you could send in bikes that the manufacturer has listed as wet weight, and get them approved now. Certainly going by the SV400 email, it would seem as though they are taking into account wet weights rather then dry.

Now, if only they'd take power at the wheel rather then the crank, and we'd be cooking

Ah, but to get a wet weight you will have to measure it yourself, because the manufacturers have no standard way of getting their dry weights.
So, bike at weigh station and then a quick dyno... fill the tyres, motor and tank with lead.


Sent from my genius

[huff3r]

Tare = Unladen
Uk definition of Unladen is ready to go, but without fuel or batteries (if electric powered).

We normally steal lots of rules and definitions from the pommies so I'd guess Tare includes Oil but not Fuel, which is the same as the "Unladen Mass (Weight)" we use for Aircraft under NZ CAA rules.

So they should have added around 1-3kg for oil but nothing for fuel?

[arcane12]

Or if they didn't have an arbitary CC cutoff still. I understand they don't want learners running around on giant bikes (I think a 256kg 883 HD will get in? You could probably find even heavier HD's as well that would get in) but perhaps a weight restriction would have been a better idea?

--edit--

Even better (not that I'm saying I want a HD, they are just easy pickings) a 305Kg Street Bob

[Maki]

I have reviewed the information that you supplied for the Suzuki SV400. All of the weights that are listed for the bike are the dry weights, if we take the 16l of fuel into account then we can add another 11kg to the bikes weight and this will make it LAMS compliant.

Power kW
Tare weight + 90 kg

kw per tonne
39
268
1000
145.5223881

The Suzuki SV400 and SV400S will be added to the approved LAMS list in the May update.

Regards
__________________________________________________ ________

Graeme Swan

Nothing like a little common sense in the morning to brighten your day!

Does this mean that the R6 will be LAMS approved if I add a 400l fuel tank?

[reggie1198]

How much fuel will an 1198 require then, I did the maths and am getting about 770kw per ton.
And the seat is to small to carry a bloke fat enough to make this a LAMS approved bike. And the ton of fuel could make her a bit top heavy

[ducatilover]

How much fuel will an 1198 require then, I did the maths and am getting about 770kw per ton.
And the seat is to small to carry a bloke fat enough to make this a LAMS approved bike. And the ton of fuel could make her a bit top heavy

Just ride it in the wet, or give it time. It's Italian

[PeloNZ]

This SV400 will be a pretty sweet lams bike. I have added a list of future lams bikes to the wiki here: http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/wiki/LAMS...ial_LAMS_bikes