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.

that is NOT learner legal

Discussion in 'Bike Reviews, Questions and Suggestions' started by catch-22, Jan 7, 2011.

  1. Friend of a friend showed me his Ducati Monster 400 2000 model as he had heard I was in the market for a Duc 400 or 620 (620 preferred)

    Long story short, he insists it is learner legal. I'm telling him its not. RTA current list clearly lists the monster 400 year 2002 to be the only year model that is legal. It is stated as clear as day. If it were within a year range that would be stated, but it isn't. What is is 2002.

    ohh, an NO Duc 620 is legal UNLESS it is LITE!!!! The sales plug on popular sales sites for 620s say they're legal....but the RTA will disagree.

    BUT....it was stamped on the rego papers.......so what part of the RTA are right - rego papers or website list??

  2. Check the rego label? Should say LAMS :).
  3. there is a 2000 model at the bike shop and the rego label says lams
  4. learner legal and dog slow
  5. Dog slow? Really?

    How are they in comparison to a 620?
  6. if its got lams on the rego label thats all the wollopers care about.

    if you want a fast learner legal bike get an RVF400. i would say the 620 is probably one of the best handeling learner legal bikes. but the RVF beats it hands down if tis been set up right. the duc's got punch. the RVF needs to be wound out to get moving. apples and oranges really. unless you can get the 400m cheap i wouldnt bother.
  7. Not really after something fast as such....just something that wont be revving its ringer out doing 80 and 90 and something with a little torque. Heard the 620 has that.

    Really like the look of naked's....but cheers for the RVF suggestion...
  8. the 620 lite is considered dangerously underpowered/restricted.
    there was a review posted on here yonks ago that said it struggled to hit 80kph.
    perhaps they've improved, i do not know.
    speed/power is only relevant to what you're accustommed to, all bikes are fun, whatever tickles your fancy.
    i do think the newer small capacity bikes with fuel injection have a bit more zip to them though.
    i also think the prices i've seen on 10-12 year old 400 ducs are ridiculous.
    but yeah, just take your time, research, compare, sit on heaps, blah, shop wisely, bear in mind that absolutely everything a salesman tells you about a make/model is a complete lie., always walk out the door and sleep on it first, good luck.
    cb 400 is a naked and a solid reliable bike in it's own right, would also hold it's value well as a gap bike, or just a good bike to keep
  9. GS500 - naked, good speed, easy to get the power and delivers everything you need.
  10. I seriously find that very hard to believe. However, I did read they were only 25kw. Can't hit 80.....6 speed and large bore cylinders.....I recon it should be able to hold 80 without an issue.

    I have also looked at the GS500 and it ain't half bad. Felt comfortable. I did love the Kwaka er6n but don't want to buy new or pay way too much as they are still newish.

    I want to get a bike in the next month at the most....
  11. 25kw isn't a lot for a 600, but it should be enough for about 140 from a smallish, lightish bike with an average sized rider.

    Quarter mile times wouldn't be spectacular though.
  12. yeah it does sound pretty lame so maybe my figures aren't right.....

    edit: thats right, I got those numbers from the RTA LAMS list, but it was for the Multistrada lite...not the Monster
  13. "lame" will pretty much sum up "performance" on anything that is LAMS approved.

    face it.. they're all pretty much of a muchness because they all fit the same criteria of power to weight ratio. Best thing you can do to make a LAMS bike quicker is drop 20kgs. IF you're a bigger fella you should go for a bigger bike, if you're heavier then a heavier bike will suit better because you make up a smaller percentage of the total weight of you and the bike.

    Remember that you won't get stunning performance out of a LAMS bike. That's why they're LAMS approved in the first place.

    it's a phase we've all got to go through and while it's hard drooling over the big engined awesomeness machines that some people ride that we can't, Ls will be passed and restrictions will come and go and you can then go play on something bigger and more fasterer.

    my GPX250 isn't quick compared to the big sports bikes, but I always knew that. It is quick off the mark compared to most cars, which is all I need at the moment.
  14. Thread moved to bike reviews, OP please acquaint yourself to the site and make sure you post to the correct forums.
  15. If you're willing to look at the slightly older carbied Monsters, the M600s are all learner legal (and sit just 1kw under the LAMS power/weight limit - so LOTS of getup-and-go compared to most LAMS bikes I've seen).

    Makes for a hell of first bike!
  16. This is completely wrong.
  17. Something alone those lines. The figure of 21.5kW is in my head for some reason... and that'd bring it to a nice even 30hp as well. Either way, it'd be good for 140ish as somone mentioned above. As an aside, a bike is LAMS legal if the sticker says so and its capacity is under 660cc.

    You are also able to challenge the 'Lamsness' of a bike with the RTA - thats part of how they update their lists. For example, a mate of mine wanted to buy a '97 Ducati 600SS on his L's. They weren't learner legal, only the pre-97 models were, but the 97's only had a minor power increase and were well within the set limits. We laid this out for the RTA fellows over the phone. We check a few weeks later and they'd added the bike to the list. Problem solved.

    - boingk
  18. apologies..

    what I was getting at (of course without actually saying it.. and there was the problem) is that there's not really much point being focussed on performance when you're in the market for a lams bike, because they're all reasonably similar in terms of power to weight ratio.

    the only reason we have LAMS at all (rather than straight capacity limits like there used to be) is because some heavier bikes are not as powerful as others and exhibit the same performance characteristics as the smaller capacity bikes.

    Of course you'll get better out of a 400 than a 125, and while there's some that are slightly better than others when you're talking 250cc - 650cc I would have thought that in most cases they're all fairly similar. My mate's GS500 with him on it and a full tank of fuel has the same power to weight ratio as my GPX250 with me on it and a full tank (within about a poofteenth). My other friend who weighs about what I do will get heaps more out of my GPX than I will because he's a better, more experienced rider.

    if I get a bigger capacity bike I get a more powerful bike but a heavier bike because it has to meet the power to weight restriction too. In SA I think it's 150kW/ton.

    That's not saying there aren't advantages to heavier bikes but these are more dependent on the rider rather than the bike itself. Terms like "fastest" and "performance" in the LAMS category are mostly dictated by the properties of the rider, rather than the bike.

    At 5'10" and 85Kgs I'd get more "performance" from a GS500 over my GPX250 based on overall power to weight ratio , but would I really... because I'm new to riding and wouldn't think I'd get anywhere close to pushing the envelope on either bike. And in that case... does it really matter?

    (apart from heavier bike isn't blown around as much in the wind!!!)

    happy to be corrected on this though... like I said... I'm fairly new to all this so I don't know everything... yet ;)
  19. There is however a big difference in the torque/weight ratios. Big difference between a 40hp 250 that redlines at 18,000rpm, and a 40hp 600cc single that redlines at 6,000.