33bhp, do you agree with it?

Originally Posted by thefallenangel

well look at it again.

Under the age of 18 is the same pretty much as it is now, the 33bhp for a year is fine and after that any 600 non-sports will fit in under 80 bhp until 21. It's not difficult and will weed out all the people who find it too complicated until an older age. You'd be suprised how many people wait until 21 just to avoid 33 bhp.

I'm sorry, but if someone finds riding a bike complicated at the age of 18 then motorcycling is not the pastime they should be taking up. If it's too complicated at 18, then it will be equally as complicated at 21, 25 or 40. Idiots and the clueless do not get less idiotic or less clueless as they age, if anything they become worse.

[hindle8907]

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

or dropping it on car park of dealership like this guy

it never gets old that .... hahahah i love the smash sound

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by hindle8907

it never gets old that .... hahahah i love the smash sound

I've heard that too much, reminds me of empty bank account.

Another thing that bugs me is the fact that in 1979 when I passed my test, a 33bhp bike was what we were riding as learners on L plates (RD250 was rated at 32hp) - now you have to have a full licence and that's what you are restricted to once you've gone through all the hassles involved in getting a test pass.

[Bri w]

Originally Posted by Triv650

Well I apologise for going into the biking world with a bit of apprehension.

Yes, I do expect people to believe that I would do that. I'm not speed junkie, I don't crave to be the fastest and I certainly don't need all that power at the moment whilst I'm still young and inexperienced. Before people start spouting stuff about the fact that they started off on a huge bike and they're fine, that's you and I'm me.

I don't know how I've offended you with my clearly blasphemous opinions but I'm sorry to have caused such offense. Clearly my lack of judgement in not wanting enough power is my downfall.

Sounds like you've got the right mentality - ride the way you feel comfortable. Whether you end up on a balls out sportsbike, thrashing the nuts of it or pick something totally different is up to you. Your choice, whatever it is, doesn't make you wrong.

Hmm tough one. For myself it's a complete nono. But I can really see the benifits, I wouldn't want some of my mates having more than 33BHP on their GSXR 750s as they arn't the most skilled at times.

I guess I'm lucky mines easyily changed - and that I only have 70ish BHP when on full power. I may be more hesitant if I had 133 to play with.

So yes its a good thing (voted yes). But it's annoying for myself, as it's illegal when removed...


EDIT: Oh and I passed at 17, no lessons, now about 9 months into restriction - Bikes fooked atm so non of this really matters

I did DAS and was old enough not to be restricted so it never directly affected me. I think I understand what they are trying to do with it, but am undecided about the effect as I'm not really in favour of legislation to protect you from yourself. I'm certainly not in favour of a sliding scale as that would make it even harder to understand, justify, and police.

Anything age related is always going to be arbitary and by its nature "one size fits all." Nobody would really argue for a car or bike license for a 10 year old, but where do you draw the line? Personally, I don't think 17 is unrealistic for either cars or bikes. I don't think the arguments comparing bike restrictions and lack of car restriction are necessarily valid; the capital cost of a 5 year old supercar is much greater than a 5 year old superbike which car be picked up for a couple of grand, but I refer you to my point about legislation.

Originally Posted by Noble Ox

Hmm tough one. For myself it's a complete nono. But I can really see the benifits, I wouldn't want some of my mates having more than 33BHP on their GSXR 750s as they arn't the most skilled at times.

I guess I'm lucky mines easyily changed - and that I only have 70ish BHP when on full power. I may be more hesitant if I had 133 to play with.

So yes its a good thing (voted yes). But it's annoying for myself, as it's illegal when removed...


EDIT: Oh and I passed at 17, no lessons, now about 9 months into restriction - Bikes fooked atm so non of this really matters

You still not dropped the engine out yet! lol your taking your time matey

[chris8886]

to start, i passed my test in october 2006 at the age of 20. i had to be on a 125 as i was under 21 and therefore restricted for 2 years to 33bhp. initially i thought it was a load of crap and had a number of different people including my intructors (who were very decents chaps and chapess') tell me to buy something restrict for the certificate etc and then just remove it. having bought an sv and ridden it a couple of times before i got it restricted (bearing in mind i'd not ridden since passing my test a few weeks before (i never had a 125 or anything) as i wanted to and had to get around a bit)). i scared myself a bit sh1tless a couple of times due to a bit of lack of control with the right hand. i decided it was a good idea to fork out the ridiculous £200 to have it done. a few months later i was getting a bit bored of it and ventured as to some thoughts on here about removing it and predictably got flamed lol. i'm glad i did as i came to appreciate that i didn't need more power at the time, which i proved to myself on several trackdays (including silverstone gp circuit). i came to see it as a bit of an apprenticeship if you like and it was a good learning curve. i also enjoyed that i could pretty much open the throttle as much as i liked on a trackday in a corner and not get thrown over the highside.

i could have taken my test again when i reached 21 and removed it legally, but i decided that it was good for me to keep learning like this and save the money on having more lessons to remember pass your test riding.

when the day finally came that i could remove it after my 2 years i was delighted and i feel i was ready for it having gotten 10000 or so miles under my belt. i did and do now enjoy the extra oomph, but i definately think with hindsight it was a good idea for me and is a good idea for others to learn about there machine and what it can do more than just going fast upright in a straight line.

Originally Posted by Lozzo

But this is you, and if you had a full power bike you could still ride it at the speed you ride at now. No-one forces you to ride fast, the throttle goes both ways. Do you not agree that it's another freedom that's been removed from us?

you're right, but i think people especially younger people get caught up in how much you can twist that throttle and go fast. being forceblly a bit slower makes you learn how to carry a bit more corner speed etc i think.

Originally Posted by hindle8907

I just turned 21, i took my test while i was 20 so i am now restricted for another 14 months. **I feckin Hate it**

33bhp restriction i think its a good idea for new riders to get used to a bike before they can jump on any bike but its just stupid how once your over 21 and sit your test you can get on what you like and don't have to do the restriction period.
it should be for everyone or no one imo.
but i dont think it should be for 2 years, 2 years is a hell of a long time .....
maybe 1 year would be ok.

but it is a stupid law.

i don't know about now the test has changed, but i had the option of doing my test again when i turned 21 to get rid of the restriction.

[hindle8907]

Originally Posted by chris8886

i don't know about now the test has changed, but i had the option of doing my test again when i turned 21 to get rid of the restriction.

yeah i can take it again but cant really be bothered i think ill just stick it out unless i come into some spare cash.
i don't mind town riding but motorways anit half boring.

and its a bit **** when you get some dcik who you would leave if you wasn't restricted lol