33bhp, do you agree with it?

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by simesb

EU thinking

Not read all this, and didn't realise it had all come out of the seized bike thread.

I voted yes initially, then left the thread alone.

Where powerful bikes catch out new riders is their ability get past thee figure speeds at the flick of a wrist, and to do it with such ease and be so stable that the rider doesn't realise it until he looks down at the speedo, or reaches a bend at twice the speed he thought he was doing.

I test rode a Triumph Sprint ST 1050, exited a roundabout onto a dual carriageway and gave it some beans to see what it could do. I won't say what indicated speed I reached, but it was getting on for 50% more than what I was expecting to see when I looked down at the speedo! I just sat there at that speed for a few moments, marvelling at the fact that the bike did it with so little fuss, smooth and stable, no intrusive wind buffeting, engine not screaming, etc.

I'm not a novice rider, but compared to the SV I had become used to, the bike still took me by surprise!

Overcooked corners make up the vast majority of accidents, and overcooked corners are often the result of too high an entry speed. So if a new rider jumps on a 1000cc bike, and decides to "give it some beans to see what it could do" because he comes to a nice long straight bit on a country road. What speed does he get up to? At what point does he realise the next corner is looming? At what point does he start braking for it? Does he even know where to start braking from that speed? What entry speed is he still carrying when he gets to it?

Don't tell me the throttle goes both ways when we are talking about under 21 yr old males! They will give it the beans when they get the chance, it's too much temptation and fun not to. What 33bhp does, is allows them to have their fun for two years, without reaching 150mph, and lets them get it out of their system and learn how handle the bike, and brake from 100mph, before they graduate to a bike that can reach 150.

If you are teaching somebody to play golf, you don't stick a 1 wood in their hand on day one, you give them a 7 iron and teach them how to swing the club, and you slowly build up through the clubs until they can do to 300yds drives with a 1 wood. Steping up from 50cc to 125 cc, to 33bhp, to unrestricted is an attempt to do the same. It's not a perfect system, but it's better than nothing.

I have just passed my test and have no objection to being restricted as I am used to it by now (over a year on a 125 due to the cost of taking full bike test) what I do not agree with is me having to shell out a further 180 pounds (in some cases) to get the bike I have just spent my savings on restricted!

If there was a cheaper way, or some way the government could make mechanics charge a flat rate on fitting it then it would be more viable. The restriction on the bike will also make it run rich and cost me more money on fuel also as it can only be restricted by the carbs (it is a 2000 SY model). Petrol poverty isnt fun

I am older than Scoobs.

I passed my test via DAS when I was 34, if i had to ride a restricted bike for 2 years before hand i dont think i'd have bothered.

i voted yes, as i think it is a good idea as i know what i was like when i was a nipper i'd have been throttle happy and prolly not alive much any more

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by .:Robin:.

If there was a cheaper way, or some way the government could make mechanics charge a flat rate on fitting it then it would be more viable. The restriction on the bike will also make it run rich and cost me more money on fuel also as it can only be restricted by the carbs (it is a 2000 SY model). Petrol poverty isnt fun

Actually it will run fine. Intake washers on CV carbs just make the bike think you've only opened the throttle halfway.

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

Actually it will run fine. Intake washers on CV carbs just make the bike think you've only opened the throttle halfway.

Lets hope so - good news

[Sid Squid]

Originally Posted by .:Robin:.

If there was a cheaper way, or some way the government could make mechanics charge a flat rate on fitting it then it would be more viable.

How would this work? Not all bikes are the same thus not all bikes require the exact same amount of work/time in order to make the necessary restriction.
The law requires that you ride a bike of a given maximum power, you could buy a bike that doesn't exceed the limit and then not pay for a restriction - if you choose to buy a machine that produces more power and thus requires equipment bought and work done in order to comply, that's your decision - and thus the cost should be yours too.

Originally Posted by .:Robin:.

The restriction on the bike will also make it run rich and cost me more money on fuel also as it can only be restricted by the carbs (it is a 2000 SY model). Petrol poverty isnt fun

As stated above this is not so - in essence the throttle will not open more than a given amount, there will be no difference other than that.

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by Sid Squid

The law requires that you ride a bike of a given maximum power, you could buy a bike that doesn't exceed the limit and then not pay for a restriction - if you choose to buy a machine that produces more power and thus requires equipment bought and work done in order to comply, that's your decision - and thus the cost should be yours too.

I dunno.

I reckon if this BS law saves so many millions of pounds in 17 year olds who didn't need scraping off road and autopsy, investigation etc then it should be free.

Usual crap about personal responsibility versus government interference applies

[Dave20046]

Originally Posted by -Ralph-

Overcooked corners make up the vast majority of accidents, and overcooked corners are often the result of too high an entry speed. .

To be honest I thought junctions/other car interfaces would make up the majority of (killed or seriously injured) crashes.
I voted no but that's because I don't agree with the current setup. I think if it were one year and applied to all new riders, or if it were on a mileage basis I'd agree with it.

I don't see how a mid life crisis'er (emergency services' problem age group by the by) jumping on gsxr thou with no previous experience is any safer than a nineteen year old with 3 years of CBT experience jumping on a thundercat or sv or whatever they can afford.

meh, mánge toot.

[Sid Squid]

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

I reckon if this BS law saves so many millions of pounds in 17 year olds who didn't need scraping off road and autopsy, investigation etc then it should be free.

I take your point - and I'm similarly sceptical the positive effects of restricted bikes - but Robin suggested that restriction is too expensive, my answer reflected the fact that it isn't entirely necessary to spend your money getting a restriction done.
You could buy a bike that didn't need restricting - that's a buyers choice and thus the cost of restriction isn't entirely mandatory, it's predicated upon one's own buying choices.