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

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

I want somebody with ECU restrictor to disable their STV system and see what happens.

Translation for the layman? The closest I could find was a suction throttle valve, doesn't quite fit!

Originally Posted by carternd

Translation for the layman? The closest I could find was a suction throttle valve, doesn't quite fit!

Secondary Throttle Valve I think. The restriction ECU must have something to do with the operation of that valve. I know the valve exists and that's where my knowledge ends, this not a BASAT approved post!

[Sid Squid]

Secondary Throttle Valves. The sort of FI version of CV carbs.

My XT600 has a dual carb setup, half slide carb and half CV. I understand the concept behind what it is achieving, but don't yet understand how it achieves it, I need to take the carbs off and have a look. I'm not convinced the secondary carb is working properly as I feel it's short on power sometimes, compared for instance to Specialone's DRZ400.

Anyway, this is a derail, but Flame, if you do end up having to get your bike re-dyno'ed, can you post up where and how much? I might get the XT done as well and see what it the garage tells me.

Originally Posted by -Ralph-

Secondary Throttle Valve I think. The restriction ECU must have something to do with the operation of that valve. I know the valve exists and that's where my knowledge ends, this not a BASAT approved post!

Originally Posted by Sid Squid

Secondary Throttle Valves. The sort of FI version of CV carbs.

Thanks, will Google later. I think I saw a cut-open of a bike showing one in Bike ages ago... will have to read them all again!

[Taipan]

Originally Posted by specialone

One thing he apparently said was his officers legally seized his bike, i dispute that, i thought some kind of form was supposed to be issued or is that balls?
If no form or receipt was issued, how can that be legally seized.

Originally Posted by Flameboy

Something I've just read up on wiki, after being told PACE had been used to seize my bike.

• PACE Code A: deals with the exercise by police officers of statutory powers to search a person or a vehicle without first making an arrest. It also deals with the need for a police officer to make a record of such a stop or encounter.[7] On 1 January 2009, Code A was amended to remove lengthy stop and account recording procedures, requiring police to only record a subject's ethnicity and to issue them with a receipt.[8]

No such receipt was given to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_...dence_Act_1984

Given that the Officer has said all along that his reason for stopping flameboy was because he pulled away from the kerb very quickly, I expect that would be enough to seize the bike under section 59 of the Police reform Act 2002, which applies to the Road Traffic Act 1988; of which he could apply item 2, 3, 12 although more likely in this case item 42 or 76 or even item 87. In short I wouldn't bother pursuing this line. The Officer was within his rights to seize your vehicle. Whether he should have or not is another matter but he was certainly within his rights one way or another.

My personal opinion is the Officer over reacted and I'm sure the matter will be put right and you'll be granted any recompense due.

Originally Posted by Taipan

Given that the Officer has said all along that his reason for stopping flameboy was because he pulled away from the kerb very quickly

I don't believe that to be the case, they only came up with that reason (excuse?) after they were challenged to advise which legislation the bike was seized under.

Flame, you shouldn't take that too personally, it's just the police playing the game and covering their own ar$es in case you decided to make a complaint. It does not mean that the police actually believe it to be true, or thought you pulled away too fast at the time.

[Taipan]

Originally Posted by -Ralph-

I don't believe that to be the case, they only came up with that reason (excuse?) after they were challenged to advise which legislation the bike was seized under.

Flame, you shouldn't take that too personally, it's just the police playing the game and covering their own ar$es in case you decided to make a complaint. It does not mean that the police actually believe it to be true, or thought you pulled away too fast at the time.

What I'm saying is they will find just cause for seizing, so I dont think he'll have much of a case there.

Originally Posted by Taipan

What I'm saying is they will find just cause for seizing, so I dont think he'll have much of a case there.

No he won't, but TBH he really doesn't need it. There so much **** up here it will never get past the CPS and into court, the prosecution would get ripped to shreds. That doesn't mean however that it's impossible to get a guilty verdict if it did go to court as it is not the prosecution who would be on trial, it would be Flameboy, and for all the criticism and abuse that would come out in court, all the court would be trying to assess is if he was guilty of an offence, and if so should he be punished for it.

[yorkie_chris]

With that shaky-@rse dyno evidence just wheel anyone who's ever read any SAE publications up on stage and let them rip prosecution to shreds.
Court would be a joke.