Dealers and non LAMS bikes?

[Glowerss]

Question to all of you in the know.

Are dealerships allowed to sell bikes as "LAMS bikes" or learner approved bikes when they aren't on the list?

Private sellers on trademe I would imagine can say whatever they want, but what's the ruling on proper dealerships?

Coleman's suzuki in particular is pretty bad at advertising bikes as being learner approved LAMS bikes when they've either modified them to make them non compliant (exhausts for example) or are selling plain non compliant bikes ( They have an SV400 which isn't on the list yet, and a CB400 superfour which won't ever be LAMS compliant).

Doesn't affect me at all, but it does bother me when bike shops can't even get something simple like LAMS correct, and I'd hate to see somebody new to motorcycles buy a bike they thought was OK and find out later that they're not legal.

[Eddieb]

You're not the only one to have noticed. I put a thread up about Coleman's advertising of modified DR650's so they are no longer LAMS compliant a while ago. They seem to do it a lot.

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...sing-be-warned

[Glowerss]

You're not the only one to have noticed. I put a thread up about Coleman's advertising of modified DR650's so they are no longer LAMS compliant a while ago. They seem to do it a lot.

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...sing-be-warned

Yeah, I sent Coleman's an email today pointing out they've got a few bikes listed as LAMS approved when they definitely aren't. I was rather polite, and pointed out which bikes and why they weren't LAMS approved.

I got a shitty snarky ass email back asking me if I'd buy them if they were LAMS approved.

No change on the trademe listings.

[FJRider]

Private sellers on trademe I would imagine can say whatever they want, but what's the ruling on proper dealerships?

That is incorrect.

The item on sale MUST be as described/claimed. (Trademe policy/rules state this) If items are not ... you can take them to court.

As for the advertised DR650 being "LAM's approved". I would ask for another discount as it would only be allowed standard exhaust systems. And I would probably get it too ...

[carburator]

its not the only industry that it happens in, unfortunatly there is no accountability at the moment..
however if you would like to point out to managment, the consumer act and false avertising and the
fines attached to it they may change their tune.. more likey they will blame it on the minion...

it does paint a poor picture of honesty for the industry...

[Grashopper]

and a CB400 superfour which won't ever be LAMS compliant.

Wait, didn't you just say in your other thread the superfour might just make it? Or did I get that wrong?

[Glowerss]

Wait, didn't you just say in your other thread the superfour might just make it? Or did I get that wrong?

If somebody submits a form for the liquid cooled CB400 Super Fours and points out that if they factor in fluids then it would probably make it, then yes it could *POTENTIALLY* be added to the list. When I checked earlier it was some 151 kw/tonne dry. With 11kg for fluids its 144kw/tonne.

I'm not sure if that's become standard policy for the NZTA to now factor in wet weight, or if they did it as a one off for the SV400 as it was only like, 3kg too light to make it under 150kw/tonne.

However, unless Coleman's has some insider knowledge on things, they're not LAMS approved at the moment. The SV400s won't become LAMS approved until March at the earliest.

Selling either as a learner LAMS approved bike is slightly dishonest at best as I could walk out with one tomorrow and be pulled over same day and slapped with "riding outside license conditions".

Not really ideal if you're the person purchasing.

[Gremlin]

Easy enough to take it to the Commerce Commission. They are stating something that isn't true (and if they know it, then it's actually more of a lie), and customers could likely buy the good on the misleading information...

I think once someone like the Commission starts contacting them, they may change their tune...

[Ender EnZed]

Question to all of you in the know.

Are dealerships allowed to sell bikes as "LAMS bikes" or learner approved bikes when they aren't on the list?

At a guess: No.

Easy enough to take it to the Commerce Commission. They are stating something that isn't true (and if they know it, then it's actually more of a lie), and customers could likely buy the good on the misleading information...

I think once someone like the Commission starts contacting them, they may change their tune...

+1

Coleman's has quite clearly fucked up here and needs to get their shit in order.



The CB400 should make the LAMS list like the SV400 but it hasn't yet and it won't happen by chance.

[Jantar]

I believe that the modified DR650s would still be LAMS approved.

To remain LAMS approved then no changes may be made with the intent of increasing the power to weight ratio. The FMF exhaust would do that, but the increased fuel load in the IMS tank would restore the PtW ratio to where it was.

[Gremlin]

I believe that the modified DR650s would still be LAMS approved.

To remain LAMS approved then no changes may be made with the intent of increasing the power to weight ratio. The FMF exhaust would do that, but the increased fuel load in the IMS tank would restore the PtW ratio to where it was.

I don't know if the IMS gets taken into account? I didn't think there was teh allowance where you could increase here and decrease there, get a balance sort of thing? Do they use a set amount of fuel or a full tank?

[Glowerss]

I believe that the modified DR650s would still be LAMS approved.

To remain LAMS approved then no changes may be made with the intent of increasing the power to weight ratio. The FMF exhaust would do that, but the increased fuel load in the IMS tank would restore the PtW ratio to where it was.

I don't know if the IMS gets taken into account? I didn't think there was teh allowance where you could increase here and decrease there, get a balance sort of thing? Do they use a set amount of fuel or a full tank?

With regards to the DR650s, *ANY* modifications designed to increase power to weight ratio (read: any modifcation) makes the bike no longer LAMS compliant.

It's the only way to make the law be enforceable. A cop can pull you over, see that you have an aftermarket exhaust, and write the ticket. He's not going to sit there and go "well the aftermarket exhausted added 2 BHP and removed 5 kilos but the bash plate added 10 kilos so let me whip out my calculator and see if the bike remains within 150kw!".

For the plod who doesn't know anything about bikes, it's a very straightforward matter. Is it a LAMS bike? Does it have an aftermarket exhaust? If yes to both, write ticket!

The DR650s are neither really here nor there, however. The two bikes I spotted as being "LAMS" bikes are the SV400 which currently aren't on the list at all, and the CB400 SuperFour. The CB400 Superfour I thought may have been a mistake on their part (There is a CB400SF on the list, but it's a much much earlier air cooled version) and so I wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt. Hence the email.

The blow-off reply I recieved (and the fact they're still listed as LAMS bikes) makes me feel like taking up gremlins idea and having a chat to the commence commission.

[Asher]

I can't remember if the wording is "designed" or "intended" but either way you could probably argue that your new exhaust is not intended to raise hp or lower weight but sound and look good.

[Gremlin]

I can't remember if the wording is "designed" or "intended" but either way you could probably argue that your new exhaust is not intended to raise hp or lower weight but sound and look good.

Doesn't matter whether or not you wanted it (more power, less weight etc), the fact is, it DOES increase the power to weight ratio...

[Jantar]

I can't remember if the wording is "designed" or "intended" but either way you could probably argue that your new exhaust is not intended to raise hp or lower weight but sound and look good.

It doesn't actually use the words "intended" or "designed". What the rule says is from the NZTA FAQ:

What if a motorcycle is on the list and has been modified in a way that has increased
its power-to-weight ratio?
Any motorcycle that has been modified to increase its power-to-weight ratio is no longer
LAMS-complaint and must not be ridden on a learner or restricted motorcycle licence.

From this I would takle it that if modification is carried out that doesn't increase the PtW ratio then such modifications would be OK. This is also supported by the next part.

Doesn't matter whether or not you wanted it (more power, less weight etc), the fact is, it DOES increase the power to weight ratio...

Changing the actual power to weight ratio by a small amount doesn't necessarily remove it from being LAMS compliant as long as aftermarket parts are replaced "like for like". The NZTA website uses changing the suspension as an example:

Will the addition of aftermarket suspension affect the LAMS compliance of a
motorcycle?
If a motorcycle has a direct suspension replacement, it would not affect the power-to-weight
ratio of the motorcycle or the LAMS compliance.