aftermarket pipe, Lams allowed or not

[T.W.R]

No doubt I don't disagree with that.

Though if a learner or restricted were to turn up to his or her CBTA assessment, the same instructor that didn't give two f***s would be well within his rights to not proceed with the test as the bike is not technically LAMS compliant.

https://www.nzta.govt.nz/assets/Driv...urse-guide.pdf

Not well within their rights to not proceed, but more following procedure of rules & regulations

Google Discretion.

Discretion my arse


The list of LAMS-approved and LAMS-prohibited motorcycles is
updated as new models are approved by the Transport Agency.
These motorcycles must be in standard form as produced by the
manufacturer. They cannot be modified in any way to increase the
power-to-weight ratio.

[pritch]

Although I do question how much extra power can there be with just pipes, and no change to intake and tune.

Very little in fact. One of the bike mags did some testing of after market cans and from memory the best gain was 3bhp. Some cans actually made less power than standard. As you say, no changes to tune won't result in much of a performance gain.

[Dadpole]

The weight reduction issue is an interesting one. Can you argue that the loss of weight by removing the mainstand can be countered by an extra pie for lunch?

Also, since they allow 90kg for rider and gear, would a Pedrosa type be in the poo?

[huff3r]

The weight reduction issue is an interesting one. Can you argue that the loss of weight by removing the mainstand can be countered by an extra pie for lunch?

Also, since they allow 90kg for rider and gear, would a Pedrosa type be in the poo?

No, as it's the bike that has to meet the rules (with the allowances) not the rider. Likewise you cannot ride a more powerful bike than LAMS ones just because you're a lardarse and weigh 200+.

[Dadpole]

Can I fuck with the rules by losing the mainstand and putting on a heavier exhaust? What about lighter tyres?

There should be some wriggle room bearing in mind that a 15 -20 year old bike is unlikely to be 'as manufactured'. I doubt any copper will care, but in an insurance company tries to apply the "rules" it could be interesting.

[neels]

If your insurance company can demonstrate that having a louder exhaust than standard contributed to your accident, then you might find yourself in difficulty if you have an accident, much like having a current WOF but riding on bald tyres in the rain.

Strictly speaking non compliant is non compliant, but in reality most police will give you your ticket for speeding or riding like a dick and send you on your way, as proving in court that a change of exhaust has altered the power to weight ratio of the bike and therefore made it no longer LAMS approved is far too hard.

[AllanB]

Put some CRC on it.

[F5 Dave]

I did a silver ride forever course a few months ago and the instructor didn't give two f***s about a couple of learners on their 300s with slip ons.

Maybe you should sue them. Bet they didn't check your helmet date of manufacture either. How dare they not shield you from personal responsibility

[Taxythingy]

Though if a learner or restricted were to turn up to his or her CBTA assessment, the same instructor that didn't give two f***s would be well within his rights to not proceed with the test as the bike is not technically LAMS compliant.

Anecdote does not equal data, but it didn't bring things to a grinding halt for me.

[FJRider]

If your insurance company can demonstrate that having a louder exhaust than standard contributed to your accident, then you might find yourself in difficulty if you have an accident, much like having a current WOF but riding on bald tyres in the rain.

Most have a policy of being seen to have their policy's ... as being within the letter of the law.

Strictly speaking non compliant is non compliant, but in reality most police will give you your ticket for speeding or riding like a dick and send you on your way, as proving in court that a change of exhaust has altered the power to weight ratio of the bike and therefore made it no longer LAMS approved is far too hard.

Or getting a "Riding outside the conditions of their license" charge ... singly if they fail the attitude test. Or just add that charge to the "Others" if the riders actions deserve it. But if it's a single charge ... often as not it's a compliance notice given.

[FJRider]

Not well within their rights to not proceed, but more following procedure of rules & regulations

Interestingly ... the usual multi-class License tester would (most likely) be unaware if a motorcycle had an aftermarket exhaust system.

[T.W.R]

Interestingly ... the usual multi-class License tester would (most likely) be unaware if a motorcycle had an aftermarket exhaust system.

but a multi class licence tester doesn't do motorcycle licencing though......just the same as a standard car WOF tester isn't authorised to test motorcycles either

[T.W.R]

been looking at the regulations on motorcycle licencing and I see the old loop-hole has been well closed too

Remember the days when the capacity restrictions could be by-passed by having a sidechair...wonder how many fiddled the system with that one?

[Akzle]

insurance company, which lets face it are always looking for a way to reduce their exposure, may see it as a reason to not pay out.

aaaaaaaaaaand, depending on your jews " if it is not a contributing cause to the crash/failure..."
case law and shit. just hire better jews to out-jew your jewsurance. win-wIn. for all teh jews. and you don't get bumfucked as much. which is also a win.

[onearmedbandit]

aaaaaaaaaaand, depending on your jews " if it is not a contributing cause to the crash/failure..."
case law and shit. just hire better jews to out-jew your jewsurance. win-wIn. for all teh jews. and you don't get bumfucked as much. which is also a win.

This is very true.