V4SS for sale

[Fast Eddie]

It’ll be interesting to see what it gets bid to.

It also makes me wonder about the legal stand point of dealers and auction houses selling motorcycles without declaring that they have a ‘do not ride’ order slapped on them ??

https://www.carandclassic.com/car/C1467955

 

[EstuaryBoy]

I would guess it's a: 'Buyer beware' situation? But....

I'm sure the insurance companies will be clued up, so doubt anyone would get cover to ride it in public.

 

[BLIGHTYBRIT/SF]

Yes agree with Fast Eddie bout legality of if on the road , are insurance companies aware ? , it’s ironic that the DVLA issued a 30 plus fault notice on it or the “ do not ride thing “ , but hey look it’s got an MOT , how’s that then ?

 

[EstuaryBoy]

Also from the DVSA website:

'Check if NORTON V4 SS FJ19FFS has outstanding recalls


We don't hold information about manufacturer's safety recalls for NORTON V4 SS FJ19FFS.
To find out if your vehicle has any outstanding safety recalls, contact a NORTON dealership.'

Perhaps it's dependant upon who actually issued the recall?? As TVS didn't actually manufacture it maybe there's a legal minefield regarding it's interpretation?

 

[Fast Eddie]

Also from the DVSA website:

'Check if NORTON V4 SS FJ19FFS has outstanding recalls


We don't hold information about manufacturer's safety recalls for NORTON V4 SS FJ19FFS.
To find out if your vehicle has any outstanding safety recalls, contact a NORTON dealership.'

Perhaps it's dependant upon who actually issued the recall?? As TVS didn't actually manufacture it maybe there's a legal minefield regarding it's interpretation?

I don’t know how that site works, but Norton did NOT issue a recall.

A recall is when the manufacturer recalls vehicles in order to rectify them.

Which is kinda my point… Norton said they cannot / will not recrify them.

Instead they offered an exchange and issued a ‘do not ride’ statement !

So the way I see it is that anyone who still has one actually has a bike that the manufacturer has condemned as unsafe to use.

Hence my thoughts, how is it ok for a dealer to sell such a thing without the above being very, very, clearly stated ?

 

[EstuaryBoy]

'So the way I see it is that anyone who still has one actually has a bike that the manufacturer has condemned as unsafe to use.'

But that, to me, is the grey area, as TVS was not the manufacturer?...

Don't get me wrong, I have no axe to grind, no: 'dog in the fight' (or a shed full of V4ss' ). If I recall all problems were 'potential' problems, could there not be a scenario where an owner has addressed those problems (were they 'blanket faults across ALL bikes?) to the satisfaction of the MOT tester??

Just hypothesising!!

 

[kommando]

Well one was potential for the swingarm to crack, no crack or signs of one developing at time of test then it passes. MOT is valid for 12 months but clearly states it is really only good for the test on the day and faults can develop.

 

[Stu Bodycote]

None of the highlighted problems had any more information to them ie the problems were not broken down into what revision part, and how many were known to be of a concern.
Nothing on that list was an mot concern, apart from iirc there being a swingarm fracture.....if that was a visible fracture, then yeah there's definitely a fail criteria met there. But thats a good example....which swingarms, who welded it etc....they were numbered iirc, so there was traceability there. Or are they basing all the faults on Stuart Garners old V4, which wasn't even a proper production bike, but instead an old R&D bike that I hand stamped a frame number into and had msva'd?
I dont understand how one manufacturer can supposedly issue a do not ride statement without providing more information, especially given that the bike was made by another company (as they keep reminding us when ever a 961 part enquiry is submitted). But then again, I'm not a thinking man, I'm a Ducati owner lol

 

[Stu Bodycote]

Well one was potential for the swingarm to crack, no crack or signs of one developing at time of test then it passes. MOT is valid for 12 months but clearly states it is really only good for the test on the day and faults can develop.

I was slow typing...seems we were on the same wavelength there lol

 

[Stu Bodycote]

Does make me wonder what sort of list of faults such a company like TVS could find with your typical home brewed special bike build, if given all the resources and over a year to poke about again.
Eitherway, I'd still gladly own a V4 and I'd also happily trackday one too.

 

[Fast Eddie]

I asked the sellers the question about the faults that TVS found and apparently they have been "dealt with"

Wow! Now I’m properly certain that they’re making themselves liable !!

 

[Gojuu]

So, those original bikes make more power than the new one? That ad claims 214 - but I thought the new ones were 185?

Or have I got the units wrong?

 

[jan nelder]

horsepower claims... they’ll be all true and accurate then....

 

[kommando]

Or have I got the units wrong?

Garner's is not a recognised scientific UOM but is strong on BS.

 

[Stu Bodycote]

Power varied on the dyno....150-190whp

 

[cliffa]

I see it's Paul Hollywood's old bike. ( U.K. T.V. celebrity baker )
Did they really make 200 ?

 

[EstuaryBoy]

I see it's Paul Hollywood's old bike. ( U.K. T.V. celebrity baker )
Did they really make 200 ?

I only know Mr Bun.... Are there more??

 

[grandpaul]

SHOOT THE LAWYERS!

 

[Fast Eddie]

Power varied on the dyno....150-190whp

That’s a BIG variance !

 

[TonyA]

That’s a BIG variance !

If it made 190 rwhp , that would be listed by manufacturer as a 200HP motorcycle. I assume the V4SV rwhp is 170 and thats quite enough and comparable to Aprilia Tuono V4 .