Learner restrictions

[Hitcher]

The curfew is a hang-over for boy-racers in cars, rather than bikers. The road is no more dangerous at 11:00pm than it is at 9:00pm.

[georgedubyabush]

Yeah, ditch the cc limit, but only for me OK.

What about no cc restriction for 25yrs plus? It makes sense to restrict young people. Thinking back to my stupid actions in cars when I was school age I have no doubt I'd've been a gonner if i'd had a bike back then. I'm sure there are exceptions to 25+ maturity levels, but It'd be an improvement I reckon. It might get a few older unlicenced riders legal too that wouldnt be otherwise.

[Ms Piggy]

I'm on my learners and I do wear my L plate - I guess for me it's kind of a way that I hope other drivers and riders will give me a little bit of an allowance for taking off slowly or stalling - which happens to me occasionally!

Because I actually only started riding when I bought my bike in December it made sense to me - except (as everyone has said) the stupid 70kms speed restriction and I don't mind the curfew b/c I'm such a novice rider.

I have been out on the M/Way a couple of times and just go at 100kms. I mean really if we are supposed to be learning I think the speed restriction is lame, the general non-riding public don't know that 70kms is the limit on the Learners License (I didn't until I started checking it out) so they get peeved. I guess the logic is that the faster you are allowed to go the faster you are likely to try & go and I suppose the LTSA always have to look at the worst case scenario.

From previous discussions I've had with riders on this topic my understanding is that are pretty lenient.

[Racer X]

Why do you guys put yourselves down? I bought a VFR400 for my first bike and a 750 a few months later. But it could have been a R1 or GSXR1000 and I'd still be here today just by not doing stupid things. I respect the people in America who are always buying 600's or Litre bikes to learn on. Keeping this in mind though I actually do believe the 250cc limit is all right, but only for the Learners. Restricted should be unlimited.
Oh, I don't ride with L-Plates either, I ride with F-Plates
F being fake

[Ms Piggy]

I dont think a power to weight law should be bought in. It is too hard to police and if it was bought in what differences would it make?? Maybe stop he NSR, RG and RS250's being ridden by learners. But hardly any learners ride these anyway.

Why do you guys think a power to weight law is better?

Can someone explain to me what the power to weight ratio is?

p.s I think only being allowed to go up to a 250cc on your Learners is a good thing - maybe if someone has been riding for years and has a lot of riding experieince they would find it frustrating but at the moment I wouldn't want to go any higher.

[matthewt]

Can someone explain to me what the power to weight ratio is?

To go fast you need two main things, 1) more power and 2) less weight.

A 100kg bike with 20hp means that each HP is pushing 5kg's. Now a 200kg bike with 100HP means each HP is only pushing 2kg's. The more power and less weight of the bike then the better the power/weight ratio and the faster it can go.

The reason this is better than a 250cc limit is because an RS250 from Aprillia has a damm good power/weight ratio and it would probably keep up with many 400cc/600cc bikes (thus making a farce of the whole idea behind the 250cc limit). On the other hand there are plenty of 400cc bikes which aren't very powerful and therefore would make good learner bikes (ie, not enough power so bad power/weight ratio).

Make sense ??

[matthewt]

To go fast you need two main things, 1) more power and 2) less weight.

This ratio is why even modest bikes tend to be faster than most cars. The cars don't make that much power and weigh A LOT more than bikes.

[Ms Piggy]

To go fast you need two main things, 1) more power and 2) less weight.

A 100kg bike with 20hp means that each HP is pushing 5kg's. Now a 200kg bike with 100HP means each HP is only pushing 2kg's. The more power and less weight of the bike then the better the power/weight ratio and the faster it can go.

The reason this is better than a 250cc limit is because an RS250 from Aprillia has a damm good power/weight ratio and it would probably keep up with many 400cc/600cc bikes (thus making a farce of the whole idea behind the 250cc limit). On the other hand there are plenty of 400cc bikes which aren't very powerful and therefore would make good learner bikes (ie, not enough power so bad power/weight ratio).

Make sense ??

Yup! Clear as mud! Nah - makes good sense. Thanks

[riffer]

The more power and less weight of the bike then the better the power/weight ratio and the faster it can go.

Or an even better way to say it, is that the combination of high power and low weight gives you greater ACCELERATION.

I imagine this is where a lot of learners can get in trouble, more so than top speed, which is becoming more and more academic with HP on the prowl nearly everywhere.

Sure, you can get in trouble doing 130 around a corner which is signposted at 85, but a learner is more likely to get in trouble by accelerating faster than they can manouevre their bike.

I know this was the case for me when I started riding...

[MikeL]

Yes it's the acceleration which is the problem which is why a hp restriction makes more sense than a cc limit. The top speed capability is a bit academic and from my reading of overseas forums (Beginner Bikes is a good one) it seems that inexperienced riders are just as likely to get into trouble on powerful bikes below the speed limit as above it.
I reckon my CB-1 (400cc) would be a better bike for a beginner than some 250s. I think generally 400-500cc bikes are undervalued here because of the 250 requirement, after which most riders want to go straight for a 600 at least.

[Hitcher]

New South Wales has recently introduced a "power to weight" learner approved motorcycle regime. This includes (at one extreme) the Kawasaki 1500 Meanstreak, and a whole bunch of 600cc bikes, like the Ducati Monster.

[franco]

New South Wales has recently introduced a "power to weight" learner approved motorcycle regime. This includes (at one extreme) the Kawasaki 1500 Meanstreak, and a whole bunch of 600cc bikes, like the Ducati Monster.

I remember seeing a similar ozzy list of approved learner bikes. I think it also included the Harley Davidson Fatboy. Wow, a $30K learner bike. That's like the Merc and Beemer you see from time to time displaying L-plates in their windows...

[marty]

i ride with a guy on a ealry 90's CBR1000 quite often. although the max speed on the CBR is about 40k higher than mine, the accelleration time from 100 to 200 is about the same - he's twice as heavy as me, but doesn't have twice the horsepower.

of course the aprilia makes a lot more noise when it's doing it......

[wkid_one]

This ratio is why even modest bikes tend to be faster than most cars. The cars don't make that much power and weigh A LOT more than bikes.

And lose a shit load of their power before it even gets to the ground thru their drive train!

Plus - cars have a higher weight - therefore higher inertia. This then leads in to acceleration.

Because a bike weighs less - it needs less energy (kw) to get it moving - therefore coupled with improved power to weight ratios - bikes get off the mark way quicker as there is less inertia to overcome.

And - friction is reduced with the ground as the bikes only have 2 wheels (not four or more) meaning EVEN LESS power is needed to get the bike moving.

It all adds up to the fact that with a better power to weight, less inertia and less frictions - bikes are quicker than cars in general terms.

Hence the whole E=MC2 discussion. If you reduce the mass, you need less energy to keep the equation balanced.

[Hitcher]

Hence the whole E=MC2 discussion. If you reduce the mass, you need less energy to keep the equation balanced.

I think you mean F=mA, not E=mC2