BonnevilleAmerica.com | Forums Home | AUP | Disclaimer
Check out the new Gallery
wicked red 1100
wicked red 1100
by mag10, August 21
Windshield I need to replace
Windshield I need to replace
by philwarner, May 10
first ride
first ride
by NemoJr, April 1
Steve McQueen inspired
Steve McQueen inspired
by Feral, November 28
GaRally22
GaRally22
by chy, September 18
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Ban on RIGID Frame paper write up
#441368 04/26/2011 3:56 PM
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 52
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 52
This is going on in the province that I live in.There is a facebook page setup under Ridge Riders.Stop by and show your support.

Ban on RIGID Frame paper write up.


http://dailygleaner.canadaeast.com/rss/article/1394161



A Woodstock businessman and motorcycle restorer is crying foul because the province has revoked a registration on one of two bikes he owns because it has no rear suspension.

Joe Chronkhite of Rosedale near Woodstock says the province has told him that is 1976 Triumph isn't roadworthy because it's a hard tail. That means it doesn't have a rear suspension system. Chronkhite wants answers on why this bike and other vintage motorcycles are being rejected by the province's Registrar of Motor Vehicles.

That decision could have widespread implications for a large number of motorcycle enthusiasts who collect and restore vintage bikes and want to drive them on the open road and in shows, said Joe Cronkhite of Rosedale.

Cronkhite has been driving a 1976 Triumph T140V for several years and never had a licensing problem before.

But he's apparently opened up a bureaucratic debate over the issue of whether hard tails - motorbikes without rear suspensions - are legal on New Brunswick roads.

"Some people call them a rigid. They make bikes like this to this day," Cronkhite said.

"Personally, I like them and I own them. It's kind of an old-school thing."

Cronkhite said his difficulties with the motor vehicle registry came initially not over the Triumph, but over another bike, a 1942 Harley Davidson that he's rebuilding.

When he applied to the province to register the Harley, he was told that since he had rebuilt the bike, he would have to have it certified as safe and roadworthy by a professional engineer.

"No problem. This isn't my first time doing this," he said.

Cronkhite contacted Fredericton engineer David Hoar from a list of qualified people supplied by the province.

"Right off the bat, it was no way. He wouldn't even look at my bike. He just on the phone told me it was impossible and that hard tails aren't allowed on the road, that hard tails are unsafe on the road. So I made the mistake of telling him I own hard tails, including the Triumph, that I had been driving for the last few years. I told him 'You're mistaken,' " Cronkhite said.

"All of a sudden I got a letter in the mail ... from the registrar stating the registrar has received information that caused him to have safety concerns about the (1976 Triumph)."

The March 1 letter from the province, signed by Heather Gorman, manager of vehicle safety with New Brunswick's Public Safety Department, informed Cronkhite that until his Triumph is engineer-certified, his registration won't be replaced, renewed and he can't transfer ownership.

"No one has seen my bike. It's sitting in my garage," Cronkhite said. "The only person we know (who would complain) is Mr. David Hoar."

Cronkhite called the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of New Brunswick to complain.

"It's turned into a pissing competition. I proved him wrong, so he yanked my registration. I pay tax on this bike. I licence it every year. Everything on it is brand new. It's (the Triumph) a perfectly good working motorcycle. Now, they're asking me to recertify it," he said.

"I can't license it. I can't sell it. I can't do anything with it."

Cronkhite said his Triumph has an after-market frame that he bought from British Cycles Inc. that was designed for his bike, so he said it's not like he welded up a frame of his own.

He said when he again pursued the issue again with Gorman at the Department of Public Safety, she told him in an email that New Brunswick doesn't require inspections on motorcycles.

"When the registrar is made aware of a situation where a vehicle has been modified, the registered owner does receive the letter you were sent and they are required to have it examined by an engineer," she wrote to Cronkhite in an email in early March.

Hoar acknowledged in a recent interview that he didn't physically examine Cronkhite's bike because, in his opinion, rigid-tail motorcycles aren't safe to be on the road.

"When people are building things like these rigid-tail motorcycles, years and years ago, that was sort of the norm, as were mechanical brakes and hard tires and a whole lot of things on cars ... Anything that's typically beyond 25 years old, they don't acknowledge on the road. They should go on as an antique. The problem with New Brunswick is that the province doesn't differentiate between antiques and regular motorcycles," he said.

"We really cannot sign off on that. The reason being that the purpose of a suspension on a vehicle is not for the comfort of an operator ... It's to keep the tires in contact with the highway.

"If a vehicle will do over 15 miles per hour, we automatically put a suspension on it just for pure safety reasons ... The problem with these antique bikes with the rigid frames is they have no suspension

"At 30 miles an hour, that bike is going 44 feet per second. If that tire bounces for half a second, he's going to go 22 feet with no contact on the road and if he's into a hard turn and that rear end of that bike bounces, it will come right out from underneath him. If it's known to be dangerous, we really can't sign off on it."

Hoar said one solution would be to register the motorcycles in a vintage or antique class similar to what is done with restored cars, but even at that, those vehicles may only be driven to and from shows and aren't licensed to be on the road on a daily basis.

"The issue with the (hard tail) bikes is that they're absolutely terrible, and typically, we kill at least one person a year on a rigid-frame motorcycle. It's usually a single-vehicle accident where somebody is on a secondary road coming into a turn a little bit too fast," Hoar said.

"It's definitely a safety issue."

The Fredericton engineer said Quebec doesn't register rigid-frame motorcycles, and Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island won't recognize the bikes either.

Hoar said the solution is for the vintage bike owners to convince the province to create an antique motorcycle registration category.

Cronkhite said he still hasn't had satisfactory answers to questions about what motor-vehicle laws are being broken by the use of a hard-tail motorcycle.

"The Motor Vehicle Act requires that motorcycles have one working brake, one working head lamp, one working red tail light, a working horn and (approved) tires. There is no mention of rear suspension according to the Motor Vehicle Act. I am not breaking any laws," he said.

Cronkhite said there are at least four people in the Woodstock-Fredericton area who are into restoring vintage motorcycles and enjoy driving them.

"There are several of us who own these bikes in New Brunswick, which are already registered, and thousands more still on the road in Canada," he said.

"These are historical bikes. These are war bikes. The Canadian Vintage Motorcycle group is really behind us just because there's so many of us that ride these bikes. There are a lot of people that ride these bikes."

Charles O'Donnell, registrar of motor vehicles for the province, said this week that under the Motor Vehicle Act he can't allow a vehicle on the highway unless he knows or believes it to be mechanically sound.

"It's not something left to my proclivity; it's required under the legislation," O'Donnell said.

"But if somebody comes to me with an engineer's opinion that a particular bike is safe by whatever modifications they've made, I'm certainly willing to take a look at it. It's not a question of a bike is absolutely unsafe. Each bike might be slightly different ... If there is an engineer who has a different opinion, I'd like to listen to them."

He said he relies on the expertise of engineers to advise the government.

A couple of weeks ago, O'Donnell said, he met with six engineers to talk about a number of vehicle safety matters, including hard-tail bikes.

"I was quite satisfied that all six of the engineers were unanimous that all hard-tail bikes were dangerous and unsafe to be on the road and shouldn't be allowed to be registered," he said.

Re: Ban on RIGID Frame paper write up
rottnrotti #441369 04/26/2011 5:19 PM
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,393
Likes: 1
Second Wind
Offline
Second Wind
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,393
Likes: 1
Thanks big brother for keeping me safe. lord knows I aint smart enough to make decisions for myself. Who knows what I might do with out a baby sitter.


I have no faith in human perfectability. I think that human exertion will have no appreciable effect upon humanity. Man is now only more active - not more happy - nor more wise, than he was 6000 years ago. Edgar Allan Poe
Re: Ban on RIGID Frame paper write up
rottnrotti #441370 04/26/2011 5:21 PM
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,152
Oil Expert
Offline
Oil Expert
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,152
Quote:

At 30 miles an hour, that bike is going 44 feet per second. If that tire bounces for half a second, he's going to go 22 feet with no contact on the road and if he's into a hard turn and that rear end of that bike bounces, it will come right out from underneath him. If it's known to be dangerous, we really can't sign off on it."

Hoar said one solution would be to register the motorcycles in a vintage or antique class similar to what is done with restored cars, but even at that, those vehicles may only be driven to and from shows and aren't licensed to be on the road on a daily basis.



"The issue with the (hard tail) bikes is that they're absolutely terrible, and typically, we kill at least one person a year on a rigid-frame motorcycle. It's usually a single-vehicle accident where somebody is on a secondary road coming into a turn a little bit too fast,"




geez that sounds bogus. a 1/2 second bounce would be a heck of a thing wouldn't it?

also, i don't have real stats but, back of the envelopes says there are 6-ish MC deaths in NB in a year so 15% of them are due to hardtail bikes?

Re: Ban on RIGID Frame paper write up
Bill #441371 04/26/2011 5:25 PM
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,152
Oil Expert
Offline
Oil Expert
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,152
thinking more about it, if the bike is off the ground for 1/2 sec, that's 1/4 sec up, 1/4 sec down, that's a 6" hop so i guess it's not impossible but it would be a heck of a bump with or without rear shocks.

Re: Ban on RIGID Frame paper write up
Bill #441372 04/26/2011 7:16 PM
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,580
Loquacious
Offline
Loquacious
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,580
So, if Bill is right and its a 6" hop (and I'm not disputing that), what that engineer guy is really saying is that New Brunswick roads are too dangerous for ANY vehicle, but there are trying to hide that by banning a small amount of vehicles that they don't like


Too old to die young, too ugly to leave a good looking corpse
Re: Ban on RIGID Frame paper write up
rottnrotti #441373 04/26/2011 7:44 PM
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,164
Likes: 1
Should be Riding
Offline
Should be Riding
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,164
Likes: 1

Re: Ban on RIGID Frame paper write up
Bill #441374 04/26/2011 8:57 PM
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,048
Learned Hand
Offline
Learned Hand
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,048
Quote:

thinking more about it, if the bike is off the ground for 1/2 sec, that's 1/4 sec up, 1/4 sec down, that's a 6" hop so i guess it's not impossible but it would be a heck of a bump with or without rear shocks.




How did you come up with that?

Clay


01010100 01110010 01101001 01110101 01101101 01110000 01101000 <3
Re: Ban on RIGID Frame paper write up
frijoli #441375 04/26/2011 9:20 PM
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,883
Learned Hand
Offline
Learned Hand
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,883
Wow. That sucks.


~Brent ----- "Nothing you can be is more terrible than what I am." ~ 2007 Black Speedmaster!!
Re: Ban on RIGID Frame paper write up
Bill #441376 04/26/2011 10:53 PM
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 8,639
Likes: 3
Old Hand
Offline
Old Hand
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 8,639
Likes: 3
So, what happens on a swingarm when the rear tire bounces half a second? That's more likely to happen because there is a lot less mass attached to the wheel and springs that are intended to allow the wheel to bounce all it wants.


Let's hope there's intelligent life somewhere in space 'cause it's buggar all down here. -- Monte Python
Re: Ban on RIGID Frame paper write up
Greybeard #441377 04/26/2011 11:24 PM
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,096
Likes: 2
Fe Butt
Offline
Fe Butt
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,096
Likes: 2
Not sure what your point is here, GB. However, the less unsprung weight a tire has upon it, the quicker said tire's contact patch will return to the road surface, which is what is optimal for control of a motorcycle, or any vehicle for that matter.

And because a hard tail has much more unsprung weight on its rear end, it would never handle any where as well as would a motorcycle equipped with a swingarm rear suspension.

THAT being said....Mr. Hoar's rationale for his stance(about "at least one person is killed yearly riding a hard tail motorcycle in a single vehicle crash", and so that's why he won't certify a hard tail) does NOT hold up to RELATIVE scrutiny...and here's why:

I would bet many more than just one motorcyclist is killed in his jurisdiction in that same timespan of one year AND in the same kind of single vehicle crash while riding a motorcycle equipped WITH a rear suspension.

It is called "Operator Error". The operator of said motorcycle was going at a faster speed than conditions would warrant...and "conditions" in this case include the type of motorcycle. For instance, a Harley-Davidson Cruiser, even equipped WITH a swing arm rear suspension, could never handle twisting roads as well as, say, a Ducati Sportbike. And thus, if an H-D rider was going at an excessive speed and beyond the "performance envelope" of his motorcycle, he would need every bit of his riding skill to keep from crashing.

And thus it follows that IF a rider riding a hard tail motorcycle crashed, most likely the rider was riding beyond his motorcycle's capability or "performance envelope", JUST as the above mentioned rider aboard a swing arm equipped H-D would be riding beyond his bikes "performance envelope" if he crashes.

(...once again, the bottom line in either case would be Operator Error, and NOT the fault of any inherently relative extreme "un-roadworthy" design of the vehicle!)


Yep! Just like a good Single Malt Scotch, you might call me "an acquired taste" TOO.(among the many OTHER things you may care to call me, of course)
Re: Ban on RIGID Frame paper write up
Dwight #441378 04/27/2011 8:44 AM
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 8,639
Likes: 3
Old Hand
Offline
Old Hand
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 8,639
Likes: 3
My point is that bounce is bounce. I hadn't caught that bit about 1 single vehicle crash a year. If that's a factor, hardtail frames should be required rather than banned. There are usually more than that every 20 minutes in the area of the Rock Store with sport bikes. You get a lot more "seat of the pants" information about whether you are getting near your limits, and that's why there are so few single vehicle crashes with hardtails.


Let's hope there's intelligent life somewhere in space 'cause it's buggar all down here. -- Monte Python
Re: Ban on RIGID Frame paper write up
Greybeard #441379 04/27/2011 9:04 AM
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,284
Learned Hand
Offline
Learned Hand
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,284
Quote:

My point is that bounce is bounce. I hadn't caught that bit about 1 single vehicle crash a year. If that's a factor, hardtail frames should be required rather than banned. There are usually more than that every 20 minutes in the area of the Rock Store with sport bikes. You get a lot more "seat of the pants" information about whether you are getting near your limits, and that's why there are so few single vehicle crashes with hardtails.



Excellent point, long and short of it is that hardtails are definitly more dangerous. I know, I have several. One needs to lower the tire pressure substantially and slow down a bit.
Cars without antilock brakes are dangerous also, especially when surrounded by cars with 4 wheel disc, antilock,6 piston calipered cars with all the modern ammenities; how long before they pull the registrations on '67 Mustangs.
Bite me!


Strangler
Re: Ban on RIGID Frame paper write up
Greybeard #441380 04/27/2011 10:01 AM
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,096
Likes: 2
Fe Butt
Offline
Fe Butt
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,096
Likes: 2
Quote:

My point is that bounce is bounce. I hadn't caught that bit about 1 single vehicle crash a year. If that's a factor, hardtail frames should be required rather than banned. There are usually more than that every 20 minutes in the area of the Rock Store with sport bikes. You get a lot more "seat of the pants" information about whether you are getting near your limits, and that's why there are so few single vehicle crashes with hardtails.




Nope, not true. Once again, the more unsprung weight being bounced, the longer duration the tire is off the pavement, and thus less control on the vehicle.

But it IS true that anyone riding a hardtail SHOULDN'T ride it as fast as they should a motorcycle equipped with a rear suspension. THAT is a no-brainer, as that "seat-of-the-pants feeling" you're talking about SHOULD tell the rider NOT to exceed the hardtail's more limited handling performance envelope. And so, considering that by MY estimation, half the riders riding motorcycles today really don't know HOW to ride a motorcycle very well, yeah, maybe we SHOULD put 'em on hardtails and slow 'em down even more out there!!!! But, ALSO knowing how hard-headed MOST Americans are today(once again by MY estimation), this probably wouldn't help slow down their sorry asses anyway!!! So, so much for THAT idea!!!!

And regarding why there are so many sportbike crashes near the Rock Store, the reason for THAT is there are too many riders riding sportbikes on Mulholland Hwy who mistakenly believe that they are Valentino Rossi riding their sportbike at Laguna Seca Raceway instead of where they're actually AT....on a public highway in the Santa Monica Mountains!!!!!!!!


Yep! Just like a good Single Malt Scotch, you might call me "an acquired taste" TOO.(among the many OTHER things you may care to call me, of course)
Re: Ban on RIGID Frame paper write up
Dwight #441381 04/27/2011 10:13 AM
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 538
Adjunct
Offline
Adjunct
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 538
Does it count it if I use Bolt on Hardtail struts


Still Sucks cause if the pass it up there how long before Big Brother Does it here ??


Are we there YET? I gotta go pee!! 08 SpeedMASTER, Black and Red!
Re: Ban on RIGID Frame paper write up
Dwight #441382 04/27/2011 2:00 PM
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,393
Likes: 1
Second Wind
Offline
Second Wind
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,393
Likes: 1
Quote:

Not sure what your point is here, GB. However, the less unsprung weight a tire has upon it, the quicker said tire's contact patch will return to the road surface, which is what is optimal for control of a motorcycle, or any vehicle for that matter.

And because a hard tail has much more unsprung weight on its rear end, it would never handle any where as well as would a motorcycle equipped with a swingarm rear suspension.

THAT being said....Mr. Hoar's rationale for his stance(about "at least one person is killed yearly riding a hard tail motorcycle in a single vehicle crash", and so that's why he won't certify a hard tail) does NOT hold up to RELATIVE scrutiny...and here's why:

I would bet many more than just one motorcyclist is killed in his jurisdiction in that same timespan of one year AND in the same kind of single vehicle crash while riding a motorcycle equipped WITH a rear suspension.

It is called "Operator Error". The operator of said motorcycle was going at a faster speed than conditions would warrant...and "conditions" in this case include the type of motorcycle. For instance, a Harley-Davidson Cruiser, even equipped WITH a swing arm rear suspension, could never handle twisting roads as well as, say, a Ducati Sportbike. And thus, if an H-D rider was going at an excessive speed and beyond the "performance envelope" of his motorcycle, he would need every bit of his riding skill to keep from crashing.

And thus it follows that IF a rider riding a hard tail motorcycle crashed, most likely the rider was riding beyond his motorcycle's capability or "performance envelope", JUST as the above mentioned rider aboard a swing arm equipped H-D would be riding beyond his bikes "performance envelope" if he crashes.

(...once again, the bottom line in either case would be Operator Error, and NOT the fault of any inherently relative extreme "un-roadworthy" design of the vehicle!)



That is a well thought out,rational, logical, and intelligent reply. However sir there is a hole in the idea here. When it comes to public policy none of that matters.


I have no faith in human perfectability. I think that human exertion will have no appreciable effect upon humanity. Man is now only more active - not more happy - nor more wise, than he was 6000 years ago. Edgar Allan Poe

Link Copied to Clipboard
Rides
2025 Arkansas Rally
by roadworthy - 04/24/2025 7:57 PM
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.4