Wherever there's a large and concentrated gathering of motorcycles, there's gonna be... those who like to show interest in 'em*. After all, makes sense for the regulatory authorities to direct resources to where the maximum return can be had for the least effort  .

Fella I know was pinged $300 on the way back from PI at the weekend.... for his open clutch.  Ouch.  

I could rant on and on about how ridiculous and petty that is....  I could rant on about how our overstretched Upholders of the Right could be doing something to actually contribute to our safety on the pothole littered stretches of semi-bitumen laughingly designated as "roads".... but the Law is the Law and so if the Law doth state that the clutch must be covered... then those of us who run open are aware that to do so makes outlaws of us.  

So in regard to dry clutches, what is the rule?  

If running open will get you a ticket - and apparently it will - what is it that they actually ping you for?  The noise?  That the exposed rotating parts are deemed unsafe?  That they can see something whizzing around??

What?  





*Obnoxiously loud open piped Harleys excluded, naturally.  Maybe we all need to grow beards (Yes, you too H  )

Serve and protect!
This is ridiculous.

Quote from: jaxduc on February 25, 2013, 02:08:58 AM
Serve and protect!
This is ridiculous.

Yeah, yeah.  Lets not have this turn into that rant shall we?  I thought I hinted at that up front when I didn't rant to the extent I'd like  .

Rather than debate just how ridiculous it is, what I want to know from here is this: 
What is the offence committed?  How exactly is the "defect" described? 

If I put a wire mesh cover over the exposed rotating parts, would that conform with roadworthy regs??   How about a clear perspex cover so the whirring bling can be viewed but not heard nor poked at??  Would that make 'em happy?

Or is it something else??

What??

And no ranting, OK? 

Was it open as in no cage/cover so kitten's paws might get in there ?
Seems a little over zealous  issuing an infringement did he piss the   somehow  ? and this was his come back  
I am assuming this was in Mexico ?
The   must be smarter than up here   the NSW    just book you for speeding supplying ICE or owning a TRI colour  

So far I cant see anything listed related to that here

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/registration/downloads/vsi/vsi28.pdf

Quote from: Two dogs on February 25, 2013, 02:51:38 AM
Was it open as in no cage/cover so kitten's paws might get in there ?

Dunno.  For the sake of the debate lets say yes.

Quote from: Two dogs on February 25, 2013, 02:51:38 AMSeems a little over zealous  issuing an infringement did he piss the   somehow  ? and this was his come back  

Dunno the details.  Lets say he played nicely but got the ticket anyway coz his machine is not legal.

Quote from: Two dogs on February 25, 2013, 02:51:38 AMI am assuming this was in Mexico ?

Sí Señor. No es difícil adivinar .

Quote from: ungeheuer on February 25, 2013, 02:46:00 AM
And no ranting, OK? 

Aw come on!!! I want to rant!!!!!

i believe lots of bikes got done for non legal tail arrangements, and if it was really loud, etc, they'd give you a defective vehicle notice as well (harder to get rid of?)

there was something i read in the desmoto alluding to the clutch issue and an adr, but i don't recall what it was.

Quote from: ungeheuer on February 25, 2013, 01:48:15 AM
That the exposed rotating parts are deemed unsafe?  

Not in OZ, so I can't offer any local insight, but my gut says this one seems expecially dubious.  I mean, isn't a wheel an exposed rotating part?  Or for that matter, a sprocket and chain?

Quote from: 1.21GW on February 25, 2013, 07:21:29 AM
I mean, isn't a wheel an exposed rotating part?  Or for that matter, a sprocket and chain?

Damn that was the angle I was gonna go for.

Quote from: ungeheuer on February 25, 2013, 01:48:15 AM
So in regard to dry clutches, what is the rule?   

Dunno ... but I'll comment on your ideas anyway.

Quote from: ungeheuer on February 25, 2013, 01:48:15 AM
The noise?

Probably ... but then you would have to assume that a bike with stock pipes and an open 48 tooth clutch is probably still quiet enough to meet the dB threshold (because the angle for the reading is also important). Sounds like it would still get pinged though.

Quote from: ungeheuer on February 25, 2013, 01:48:15 AM
That the exposed rotating parts are deemed unsafe?

Yeah, probably. Because unlike a wheel there appears to be other parts that an unmodified vehicle doesn't have ... and now someone can see them ... and they can see them because they can hear them ... and surely something that sounds like that can't be roadworthy.

And besides (if you aren't convinced already) there's more than one part in the one location ... no, no not like a chain and sprocket (or heaven forbid, exposed timing belts!) with the fast moving pieces of metal that mesh together where those big, exposed, spikey teeth things are. These moving parts are packed closely together ... but not close enough ... and they appear to move in erratic, inexplicable ways in relation to one another. Look, that other bike doesn't have those bits!

I mean, you could get your shoe lace caught in there ... because everyone has shoelaces, right? Okay, you may not be wearing them when you are riding this particular bike, but you have them right? What about when you ride wearing your thongs? [attention any foreigners: please remember you are in Ozmo-land] You could have your toe nails trimmed if you tried to shove your foot in there at the wrong angle. Oh why would you be wearing thongs while riding a bike? Maybe because you can ... and you wouldn't be booked for it.

See all quite logical ... I mean I am surprised you can even buy these open clutch components in this country ... surely it must already be illegal. No? Well ... we'll see about that!

Quote from: brad black on February 25, 2013, 05:20:45 AM
there was something i read in the desmoto alluding to the clutch issue and an adr, but i don't recall what it was.

Could it just be that the vehicle has been modified so is no longer identical to the one 'approved' to comply with the ADRs?

A Benelli model has an exposed carbon, vented clutch cover oem. Similar to a Corse carbon or alloy cover. It's ADRed with it.

We need an AMA.

Quote from: ungeheuer on February 25, 2013, 01:48:15 AM
Fella I know was pinged $300 on the way back from PI at the weekend.... for his open clutch.  Ouch. 

Umm ... what did the infringement notice say?

To play devil's advocate.......

If the clutch was completely exposed ie: no cover, I can understand the infringement being given on a safety issue.

If the cover was vented, speaking from the perspective of someone who has been involved in safety inspections in another field, there should be a regulation regarding the vent opening sizes. ie below a certain size and above a certain size to prevent entrapment.

I don't agree with the issue of ticket being based on "an opinion" as these can vary from one person to the next.   

In saying that I will concede that the police are known to give tickets for the sake of giving tickets. I think it would be an issue worth taking to court.

I, like many others here, would imagine an exposed rotating part whilst stationary would be the issue.. Hazard for crap getting caught in it. (like kittens)
Going to hypothesise that this is a similar issue to supercharger belts showing (without a cover) above the bonnet of a car?

If you do a run through the vehicle safety rules and can't find anything then I'd say challenge it.

Quote from: OzzyRob on February 25, 2013, 01:45:13 PM
To play devil's advocate.......

If the clutch was completely exposed ie: no cover, I can understand the infringement being given on a safety issue.

If the cover was vented, speaking from the perspective of someone who has been involved in safety inspections in another field, there should be a regulation regarding the vent opening sizes. ie below a certain size and above a certain size to prevent entrapment.

I see your devil and raise it.

If a 'safety inspection' was to rule out an open clutch with too large an orifice ... I'd reckon the same inspection would condemn the poor bike to be destroyed for a multitude of other reasons such as that rather large unprotected heat source.

Quote from: Wells on February 25, 2013, 04:36:11 PM
I, like many others here, would imagine an exposed rotating part whilst stationary would be the issue.. Hazard for crap getting caught in it. (like kittens)
Going to hypothesise that this is a similar issue to supercharger belts showing (without a cover) above the bonnet of a car?

If you do a run through the vehicle safety rules and can't find anything then I'd say challenge it.

The difference is you can always sink the boot into the kitty ... it is a bit trickier to guard your exposed supercharger from vermin ingress.

If you are going to leave your bike running while unattended ... you probably have bigger issues.