Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

N/A | National Law eliminates rear fenders

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by chillibutton, Nov 14, 2014.

  1. Good news guys, looks like the days of all Aus bikes having to wear ugly assed rear fenders (legally anyway... cough cough...) are over. Wonder what the manufacturers will put on instead and wonder how badly this will effect the aftermarket fender eliminator/tail tidy business?



    http://www.drive.com.au/motor-news/...&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=outbrain_amplify
     
     Top
  2.  Top
    • Like Like x 2
  3. I'm quite happy with my 'ugly' fender, it does what it is designed to do, keep dirt and road grime off the back of the bike, and off me.....
     
     Top
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  4.  Top
  5. I'm sure you are but some of us like spraying dirt everywhere and making a mess.

    I for one am glad this draconian law has been abolished and I can now make a good nuisance of myself.
     
     Top
  6. Speaking of dirt, big, long fenders can catch and trap crud (undesirable) if you're riding off road. So this change will have practical benefits for people with dual sports.
     
     Top
  7. I agree. I do love the look of the fender eliminators but every time I hit road works there would be crud everywhere.
     
     Top
  8. stones and windscreens, just another thing for cagers to biatch about.
     
     Top
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. Fenders don't stop stones from flicking up onto windscreens. They're there for the reason that hornethornet said.
     
     Top
  10. i was referring to bottledwater, and yes they also stop flinging stones from experience
     
     Top
  11. Magic stones that only flick forwards not back.

    The new law still has a provision that it still must protect so I think this is just another subjective law that gives the popo an avenue to book people
     
     Top
    • Like Like x 1
  12. The trick is to be going fast enough that the forward flinging stones dont catch you.
     
     Top
  13. They don't stop the rear tyre from flinging stones up and hitting the windscreen of the vehicle behind.

    Exhibit A - my bike's fender, as standard as the day Honda made it:
    ImageUploadedByTapatalk1416029350.247850.

    Consider a line tangential to the tyre, touching the tip of the fender. The line is close to vertical. Even with my weight on it, the line won't be far from vertical. Forward of the line is where stones that are flicked up are stopped by the bike. Rearward of the line is where stones that are flicked up will continue on their trajectory. The only thing that the fender does is to stop the rear tyre from flinging debris at the rider and pillion of that bike. Stones flicked by the rear wheel can easily hit a following vehicle's windscreen.

    Just because you haven't experienced stone flick while following an ADR compliant bike, it doesn't mean that it can't happen.
     
     Top
    • Informative Informative x 1
  14. That doesnt look 45 degrees to me. You need to out 45 kgs on it then take a picture to show its true coverage.
     
     Top
  15. 45 degrees to the centre of the wheel, with 40kg on it. A tangential line from the tyre isn't the same thing. What I said still stands.
     
     Top
  16. But if you are going to say that shows how ineffective it is, then you have to show how I low it sits in real life. It's not going to throw a rock with no one sitting on it sitting still, so the pic is meaningless.

    I know from personal experience some bikes are better to ride behind than others. Personally it gives me an incentive to pass them but don't believe it that it doesn't make a difference
     
     Top
  17. Obviously I've ridden less clean road surfaces than yourself, or maybe I am fatter. Either way They are there primarily to reduce the amount of crap crud and corruption that is lifted up behind the back wheel of a bike.

    As proven on many mystery rides, I much prefer to be behind a bike with a fender, or hugger, than behind one with out.
     
     Top
  18. With full rider weight it sits 20-30mm lower. The trajectory of a rock (tangential to the tyre) that doesn't hit the fender will still be in a range that can easily hit a following vehicle's windscreen. Whether the rider's weight is taken into consideration or not is irrelevant: it can still fling rocks at the windscreens of vehicles behind.

    Take, for example, a truck which has mudflaps that reach down far enough to have only a gap of 5cm to the ground. It's still possible for a rock to be flung through that gap, and onto a following car's windscreen. This is not uncommon. Yet you somehow think that the enormous gap (much larger than 5cm) between the ground and the bottom of an ADR compliant motorcycle fender doesn't allow rocks to be flung up at the vehicle behind? Motorcycle fenders have virtually nothing to do with rock fling at following vehicles. It has a lot more to do with tyre compounds, tyre tread patterns, and the rider's lines (ie: one rider rides through more gravel sprays than another).
     
     Top
  19. #19 Vertical C, Nov 16, 2014
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2014
    Then law requires "protect other road users as far as practicable" If you are saying it needs to be to the ground to stop rocks then you are going to get booked if it's not.

    Unless you are going to show its not practical. Not sure how you would do that.

    The fact it is factory is irrelevant to the law.
     
     Top
  20. The law says that a vehicle that complirs with the relevant ADR is deemed to comply with the law, even if the ADR is in conflict with the law (ie: ADR's take precedent). All Australian State/Territory Vehicle Standards Regulations, and the Federal VSR's that I've seen have a clause near the start of the legislation, giving precedent to the ADR's. You can talk about a "protect other road users as far as practicable" clause in the law as much as you like, but I've never seen it in the ADR's. So, if the fender is ADR compliant, then it's deemed to comply with the "protect other road users" clause that you're talking about, even if it doesn't actually do it.

    As for showing impracticality for having a fender that goes to the ground, the ADR requirement for approach and departure angles does a good job of showing that for you. Then there's the possibility of showing the effect of such a long fender when bottomed out, at all lean angles.

    In any case, you should be glad that neither the ADR nor the VSR's require the rear fender to go around so far. Just imagine big lumps of plastic that go that far, flapping around in the breeze, hitting your rear tyre, and wearing it away. It doesn't sound very practical to me.
     
     Top