Slip-on cans for LAMS bikes?

[badassblake]

Hey team. I read that any modification to a bikes performance will render it ineligible for LAMS approval. I am in the market (sadly) for a LAMS bike, but some of them are pretty damn underpowered, so have been contemplating a new can as an option for a tiny increase in performance and a nice increase in sound. Obviously all figures would vary from bike to bike and can to can, but is there an average percentage you could expect from a higher priced slip on muffler, eg a yoshi or Akrapovic? Are we talking 5%? Surely a little 250 with 22kw wouldn't become a superbike with a slip on exhaust, or is that actually how LTSA sees it? Has anyone had any experience with this?
Cheers in advance

[TheDemonLord]

Hey team. I read that any modification to a bikes performance will render it ineligible for LAMS approval. I am in the market (sadly) for a LAMS bike, but some of them are pretty damn underpowered, so have been contemplating a new can as an option for a tiny increase in performance and a nice increase in sound. Obviously all figures would vary from bike to bike and can to can, but is there an average percentage you could expect from a higher priced slip on muffler, eg a yoshi or Akrapovic? Are we talking 5%? Surely a little 250 with 22kw wouldn't become a superbike with a slip on exhaust, or is that actually how LTSA sees it? Has anyone had any experience with this?
Cheers in advance

Some of what I am going to say is conjecture, others is repeating what I have heard.

I think Modifying 250cc bikes is fine - the problem is with the bigger LAMS bikes (like my GSX650FU - which aint underpowered) is that any changes to the bike/engine that increase the power will mean the bike will need to be re-tested for LAMS compliance - to make sure it stays below the rule of:

"a maximum power-to-weight ratio of 150 kilowatts per tonne (the power is that specified by the manufacturer and the weight is the weight specified by the manufacturer plus 90kgs for the rider and riding gear);"

So in theory - you could modify your bike, take it to a Dyno, get the and then apply to get it re-added the LAMS list - but tbh, the cost and effort isn't worth it.

My advise - get a bigger LAMS bike - my GSX650FU is plenty powerful until you get to 7000 RPM

[Mike.Gayner]

Demonlord, that's not correct. Modifying any LAMS bike (including a 250) in a way that changes its power to weight ratio (to any extent) makes the bike no longer LAMS compliant. Changing to a slip-on will reduce weight and increase power, and even though that power increase may only be a quarter of one horsepower, it still makes the bike no longer compliant.

[Tazz]

Demonlord, that's not correct. Modifying any LAMS bike (including a 250) in a way that changes its power to weight ratio (to any extent) makes the bike no longer LAMS compliant. Changing to a slip-on will reduce weight and increase power, and even though that power increase may only be a quarter of one horsepower, it still makes the bike no longer compliant.

x 2.

Would I do it? Yes. Would it be legal? No.

It is written very clearly.

[TheDemonLord]

Demonlord, that's not correct. Modifying any LAMS bike (including a 250) in a way that changes its power to weight ratio (to any extent) makes the bike no longer LAMS compliant. Changing to a slip-on will reduce weight and increase power, and even though that power increase may only be a quarter of one horsepower, it still makes the bike no longer compliant.

The way I intepret the rule on the NZTA website is that its only the 251 - 660 are prohibited from being modded (could be wrong here) however as a hypothetical - if you put say Aluminium brake levers on your 250 - the several grams you have saved HAS changed the power to weight - so I don't see how it could be enforceable.

[nodrog:Me]

..... I am in the market (sadly) for a LAMS bike, but some of them are pretty damn underpowered....

No shit Sherlock, that's the whole point.

[Drew]

I don't think it is written that clearly regarding the 250cc bikes. The only mention of them is the excluded bikes.

The rest aren't on the list, they're just learner legal.

[Mike.Gayner]

I disagree that it's not clear. I can find the actual regulation right now (why is it so damn hard to find?!), but from the NZTA website (emphasis mine)

Any motorcycle modified in a way that increases its power-to-weight ratio is no longer LAMS-compliant, regardless of whether it appears on the list.

http://www.nzta.govt.nz/licence/gett...torcycles.html

Pretty unambiguous. Are the rules a bit silly? Yes. Are they a shit load smarter than what existed a few years ago? Absolutely.

[Drew]

I disagree that it's not clear. I can find the actual regulation right now (why is it so damn hard to find?!), but from the NZTA website (emphasis mine)



http://www.nzta.govt.nz/licence/gett...torcycles.html

Pretty unambiguous. Are the rules a bit silly? Yes. Are they a shit load smarter than what existed a few years ago? Absolutely.

A shit load smarter?

No. Oh sure, learner squids can't make it to 215kph anymore. They can have a whirl on an IT465 as a bike to learn the better percentage of their skills on.

The new rule opens the market a lot, but it makes no more sense.

[nzspokes]

(like my GSX650FU - which aint underpowered)

Yes it is, but that's the whole point.

[bogan]

Pretty unambiguous. Are the rules a bit silly? Yes. Are they a shit load smarter than what existed a few years ago? Absolutely.

Pretty much irrelevant too, as what is written on nzta is not law; it is nzta's interpretation of the law, one they often get right of course, but still not law in its own right. Last I saw the actual law as it is written, it was very ambiguous and I erred on the side of stick a blower on your two-fiddy mate.

Oh sure, learner squids can't make it to 215kph anymore.

Fucking accurate speedos, dropped the arse out of the high performance 250 market at least as much as lams

[Drew]

Pretty much irrelevant too, as what is written on nzta is not law; it is nzta's interpretation of the law, one they often get right of course, but still not law in its own right. Last I saw the actual law as it is written, it was very ambiguous and I erred on the side of stick a blower on your two-fiddy mate.



Fucking accurate speedos, dropped the arse out of the high performance 250 market at least as much as lams

Un restricted RGV or NSR is good for over 200.

[Tazz]

A 250 is a LAMS bike. It comes under the umbrella, it just doesn't need specific mentioning because there is a blanket mention on them all. If they are not banned and are 250cc or under they are fine because that is the way the LAMS system works.

Easy, you'd think.

It gets confusing when you treat them as something separate, which seems to be the case. They are not, they are LAMS approved (or banned) bikes.

“任何修改增加了摩托车的动力使得它不再LAMS标准。”

If it was written like that, you'd have a case, but...

"Any modification which increases the power of a motorcycle makes it no longer LAMS compliant."

If you are arguing about this with a cuntstable on the side of the road next to your supercharged Ninja 250, I don't like your chances with things worded like this whether is it NZTA website material or not...

If you think a slip on is worth the risk (and it seems pretty minimal risk to me), I'd take it. If not I'd get a better 250...or a bigger bike.

[AllanB]

Best way to improve the performance is for you to go on a diet.


It's a LAMS bike - instead of wasting coin on a can spend the money on a decent rider course that speeds up getting your full so you can purchase a gruntier bike.

[mossy1200]

Demonlord, that's not correct. Modifying any LAMS bike (including a 250) in a way that changes its power to weight ratio (to any extent) makes the bike no longer LAMS compliant. Changing to a slip-on will reduce weight and increase power, and even though that power increase may only be a quarter of one horsepower, it still makes the bike no longer compliant.

Its not that simple.

The formula is.

Factory claimed horsepower less 20% due to bullshitz and factory claimed weight plus 14kg due to bullshitz plus rider weight (60kg)against guber ment calculations plus new pipe variation of 2% power increase is still under 150/1000 so legally you can claim the pipe made the bike fatter and reduced its power rather than increased it and when it was weighed and dyno tested the new figures would confirm this as fact...........unless the bike is built lately to be lams compliant and the figures have been understated rather than overstated.

So the correct answer is the bike seemed to have a lot more top end power with the original pipe and im thinking of putting it back on again.