"33bhp?" Yes "i dont believe you, I'll seize your bike and take you to court"

his bike is cdi,

so its 1& over the boarderline, id place money on if you ran it again it will be a little different, be like 9.8 or 10.5 or something,

[Sid Squid]

The relevance of the 'power' figure the police have claimed is far from certain, the suggestion that a bike that has a Suzuki restricted ECU fitted, correctly makes more than 33bhp when tested in a relevant manner is simply laughable.
I reckon a dyno in Suzuki's hands is a better measure of output than one in the hands of the police.

[embee]

One last time (then I'll keep quiet). I don't know the answers to these questions but the Police need to.

Is the limit 25kW? If so they can stop talking BHP figures straight away (you don't get done for 56kph in a 30mph limit do you?)

What test procedure does the test have to be done to in order to arrive at a power figure which is of evidential standard?
I'd ask the question this way -

"Was the test carried out in accordance with the appropriate test procedure?"

If the answer is "yes" then get the test procedure reference and look up what it entails, then check that all the requirements have been complied with.
(e.g. Directive 95/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 February 1995 on the maximum design speed, maximum torque and maximum net engine power of two or three-wheel motor vehicles )

If the answer is "no" then laugh and say you'll see them in court.

Simple.

Joe Bloggs Motorcycles rolling road one-off power test "according to what they usually do" isn't good enough. It's comparable to some pensioner pacing out 100 yards and being given a stopwatch and calculator and the Police expecting to be able to make a speeding prosecution stick.

If the bike is fitted with the restrictors for 33, you have not knowingly used your bike with it's higher power.

In law that's OK as you did not know but believed it was 33.

What the inspector would like is for you to admit it was higher.

A 33 bhp bike will still pull away faster than most cars without giving it stick.

They are looking for reasons to not admit liability so they can nick you rather than compensate you!

Or at least save the compensation part.....

Originally Posted by stevegr

In law that's OK as you did not know but believed it was 33.

Are you really, really sure about that? Logic would say that's the case, but the law sometimes works a little illogically.

[Biker Biggles]

Indeed.It used to be a principle of English law that you had to do something wrong with intent,but there are an increacing number of laws that no longer require intent.This may or may not be one of them.

You can not be nicked for having something that is a recognised fitment for restricting you bike.

In law you need to know you have more power and in this case a few more on the Police dyno does not really matter and may be a case of the way the Police dyno measures anyway.

But to be quilty of something like this you need to know that you are or a bit or two of the restrictor needs to be missing.

If the bike has a recognised restrictor fitted the Police are the guilty ones here.

[yorkie_chris]

I would like to know the providence of that information

[tigersaw]

Reading wikipedia, (out of interest, since I saw a TV prog yesterday that showed a racehorse running at 60kph exerts a force of 4 horsepower to overcome air friction), it defines BHP as power at the crank.
So if you measure power at the wheel, you'd have to estimate the losses and bung some onto the figure, or has someone explored this already?

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

I would like to know the providence of that information

If you want a clue note how the Police are reacting.

They are not going we have got you, but coming up with our dyno says you have a few more bhp.

Not this bike is not restricted so you are nicked!