33bhp, do you agree with it?

Originally Posted by thefallenangel

I think it should be more restricted

16 + - 50cc
17+ - 11bhp
18+ 33bhp
19-21 80bhp
22+ - anything you like.

If by the Ag of 22 and having to move up the restirctions you can't see that a throttle is a 2 way valve then you need to be in an accident.

To me that sounds like a really dumb for many reasons...lets hope no one think umm that sounds good.

6 years!! What thats crazy talk. People are fed up after 2 weeks. Really, really fed up after 2 years. Imagine 6. Jeez!

I agree with it but not for two years, im 19 and have had the restrictor fitted 1 and a half years now and i dont believe in an extra half year of being restricted it would make any difference to my riding ability. I improved and became a more sensible rider after my accident than i recon i will in the 5 months i have lest on a restricted licence.

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by Kalessin

Attendees of BikeKraft last Sunday were shown pictures of a car that had been hit side-on by a motorcyclist who was travelling at high speed on the wrong side of the road. The bike pushed the car sideways 200m and killed both front seat passengers.

I see it more as protecting the public from the poorer rider.

ok one incident which has actually been accused of being a fake. The kinetic energy involved in moving a car sideways 200m is massive and I believe a gross exaggeration. Unless you're beaming me up scotty and doing warp 10... fancy bending any other laws of physics today?
Plus the source is biased as trying to keep you below the speed limit.

Compare that to the hundreds of people killed in car accidents, including innocent bystanders regularly in well documented (not overhyped bollox) circumstances.

I say with complete confidence that the overwhelming majority of crashes occurring due to inexperienced riders and high power do not involve collateral damage.

[chris8886]

Originally Posted by hindle8907

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

stick it out mate and do a trackday or two on it while it's like it. you might get passed on the straights (as you would anyway even without restriction), just re-pass them on the brakes and round the corner and a lap later they probably won't come back past you on the straight. it's so satisfying and you learn a lot about what your bike can really do.

your top end speed is only down by about 20mph and despite having the extra power now the difference above 70 is noticeable, but it's not huge. the sv engine is all about what goes on below 70.

Originally Posted by chris8886

your top end speed is only down by about 20mph and despite having the extra power now the difference above 70 is noticeable, but it's not huge. the sv engine is all about what goes on below 70.

So what's the point of the restriction?

I agree with it, only because I know that I am a bit of an adrenaline junkie and I am glad I had the two years restriction (which is up in 1 month and week btw).

I was 21 when I took my test.

I think its one of these laws where you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. Just because a rider is under 21 doesn't mean they are going to be stupid on a full powered big bike and just cos a rider is 46 when he passes his test doesn't mean he's gonna be a total twonk on a gixxer thou and smash it within a week of his test.

Unfortunately with these kinda things we can't have an individual "is this guy an idiot" bike test and it has to be regulated as best they can..

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

ok one incident which has actually been accused of being a fake. The kinetic energy involved in moving a car sideways 200m is massive and I believe a gross exaggeration. Unless you're beaming me up scotty and doing warp 10... fancy bending any other laws of physics today?
Plus the source is biased as trying to keep you below the speed limit.

Compare that to the hundreds of people killed in car accidents, including innocent bystanders regularly in well documented (not overhyped bollox) circumstances.

I say with complete confidence that the overwhelming majority of crashes occurring due to inexperienced riders and high power do not involve collateral damage.

200m does sound a bit rediculous. Anyone with a basic grasp of physics could tell you that.

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by Milky Bar Kid

I think its one of these laws where you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. Just because a rider is under 21 doesn't mean they are going to be stupid on a full powered big bike and just cos a rider is 46 when he passes his test doesn't mean he's gonna be a total twonk on a gixxer thou and smash it within a week of his test.

So why does the 46 year old get to prove the point that he can be a tw*t on a GSXR1000?

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

So why does the 46 year old get to prove the point that he can be a tw*t on a GSXR1000?

Erm, that was kinda the point I was making...!