OzVMX Forum
Marque Remarks => Suzuki => Topic started by: DR on October 24, 2009, 12:34:41 pm
-
sorry to dig this shit up but are they legal so long as the rear wheel is a 125B rear wheel and the brake stay mounts to the swingarm?
-
well they were available both aftermarket and as an optional part from suzuki.
-
Yes i believe they would be legal because they were available through Suzuki in '77.
-
to be honest your only saving at the most 1.5 kgs on the arm is it really gunna make that much of a differnce
-
Chris , I thought the " B " model had a small tab on swing arm for brake stay ???
-
they do indeed Stew as the torque arm on the B didn't have the floating brakes. Caps I only ask this because my bike is built from pieces and I do prefer the look of the alloy swingarm but want to stay within the rules. There is no performance enhancment in mind and even if it were heavier i'd still be asking the question ;) For arguments sake I'll tell you what my bike consists of and any illegalities I'd like to have pointed out.
Frame - RM125A (no lug or provision for floating rear brakes)
Top Triple - PE250B
Lower clamp RM125C
Forks - RM125C less top extensions (same forks as the B ;))
Swingarm - RM125C (brake stay mounts to swingarm)
Rear Wheel - RM125B
Front Wheel - RM125C
Engine Assy - RM125C
Tank alloy job 125B
this is the rear end setup I speak of..
(http://jb4oia.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pZ2f0jBeMEQsDJ7_t7UV0muheaDinWn1vD06AgQTA5T8ksCEhmvjwfHPJwj5qtPIe4rsxeRI5oxB2uwwyvR96KosZJSilNZ0Y/24th%20october%202009%20rm125a%20rear%20003.jpg)
-
These pics always make me think that these are pre-production RM125C bikes.......
(http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa250/hjcoupe/1978-Suzuki-RM125C-P0.jpg)
(http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa250/hjcoupe/1978_RM125-2_right_Aus_740.jpg)
-
I always wondered why the bikes in the C model brochures had the lug on the swingarm. Maybe they are pre production fitted with the optional B alloy swingarm.
-
i have one of the alloy swingarm that has the brake stay on it im going to put it on my 125b
-
Forks - RM125C less top extensions (same forks as the B )
Double check your part numbers of 77-78 sliders, springs and chrome legs. I know when there was the nationals protest (i cant remmber if it was a 125 or 250) people said it was only the tall caps that were the difference on the 77-78 forks but when i checked the part numbers of the 77 and 78 sliders, springs and chrome legs there were differernt part numbers. it wasnt simply a matter of swaping the tall caps for the short ones and all was ok. There wer parts that were clearly 77 or 78 only even if the travel was the same, so in theory shouldnt be used. If they were same part number then yes ok to use.
-
The diameter of the B forks at the top triple clamp is 35mm and the C forks are 36mm at the top clamp. I think you'll find that's the difference.( it is on the 250 anyway)
-
Ok i thought i would check now anyway
RM 125 B chrome fork legs are different part number the 125 C fork legs
RM 125 B outer fork sliders are different part number to the 125 C sliders
RM 125 B fork springs are different part number to the 125 C springs
RM 125 B damper rods are different part number to the 125 C damper rods.
Now this is based from www.alpha-sports.com if you have 125 B and 125 C paper parts books or microfiche that says the above parts are the same part numbers then, you have proof in hand to show the scrutineer and you will be fine 8). If not and you decide to use the 78 parts and want to race pre 78 be prepared that you could be protested against. The part numbers are different according to the website so in my opinion you would have no argument as the part numbers are different and its in black and white.
-
Chris , I thought the " B " model had a small tab on swing arm for brake stay ???
In 1978, my RM 370 had the aftermarket Suzuki alloy arm with the tab for the brake stay. When I built a replica last year, I took a later model arm and had a tab welded onto it.
http://s215.photobucket.com/albums/cc198/farmer58za/?action=view¤t=RM370.jpg
http://s215.photobucket.com/albums/cc198/farmer58za/?action=view¤t=IMG_2802.jpg
Regards
David
-
Not the same on the 125C Johnny, 36mm all the way and identical in appearance to both the RM250C and the RM400C. I have the 125 suspension on my 400 and I had 400 forks on my 125 as I only weigh in at 50ish kgs and rarely rode the 125..matter of fact I've 'never' ridden it in the 5 years I've owned it ::)
Leith it is not me, but the scruteneer will need to have proof in hand to prove they are not '77 items ;)
Part numbers mean nothing when the parts appear physically identical and offer up no adantages. How is anyone going to dispute them unless they rip them apart to discover the minute change that required the new number ;)
Incidently Farmer58 my 400C has the mount on the swingarm but this is on a new replacement swingarm I purchased over 20 years ago. Mounting the brake stay to the shock mount on the 125 shouldn't cause any woes I'd imagine and it means I don't have to get anything welded :-\
-
Part numbers mean nothing when the parts appear physically identical and offer up no adantages. How is anyone going to dispute them unless they rip them apart to discover the minute change that required the new number
The point is there is a enough of a change of to warrant a new part number. Weather the change is cosmeric, physical or performance enchancing is irrellavant. If the parts were identical and had the same part numbers then they would be classed as follow on parts and be allowed. The choice is yours to make if you want to take the risk at not and think no one will know or sport it. If it really mattered to me i wouldnt take the risk after what happend this year, but i do think you could probably get away with it if your realy wanted to but it wouldnt be in the spirit of the rules.
-
C forks aren't and emulators are in the spirit?? ::) sorry Leith, not having a shot at you but if the parts appear the identical and no-one can tell what the difference and they offer the same travel then what's to say they are not B forks except for me knowing they're not ;) side by side there absolutely is no visable difference and it's not cheating.
Therefore, it stands to reason the parts are in fact a flow on part and this case could be argued also. If the C motor can be used as a flow on and it is internally different then why not the forks if the caps are swapped for the period correct caps?
I'm not trying to open a can of worms or be an argumentative grub but I do see inconsistancies within the rules in regards to flow on. I only really wanted to clarify the swingarm, if fitted without floating brakes, the C rear wheel or the provision on the frame to fit a brake stay is it legal? ;)
for the record, yes I do have the '76 125A swingarm I can use but I spent well over $100 fixing up the alloy job, I love the look of it and didn't want to simply leave it sitting on the shelf ;)
-
Dont worry, im not having a go at you either.
C forks aren't and emulators are in the spirit??
Yeah see what i mean, the rules are just mixed up i reckon, but thats what they are.
What you are trying to say is basically the same the WP4054 saga, where you could build a pre 85 set out of mixing and matching parts from the 85 onwards non adjustabes and they could be cosmetically the same as an 84 set and also the same performance wise but the fact that you have used later parts, it doesnt sit well with many people or 100% follow the rules.
The way i see it flow on parts are later model parts that have the same part number.
-
that last statement
The way i see it flow on parts are later model parts that have the same part number
makes more sense than anything else written here or in the book..be all too simple then eh ;) I'm not trying to build a hotty that'll have any advantage but I am trying to build something from the parts I have on hand ;) I could put it all back together and have a C but they seem to be coming out of the woodwork everywhere of late and staying pre'78 is another a driving factor ::)
-
The diameter of the B forks at the top triple clamp is 35mm and the C forks are 36mm at the top clamp. I think you'll find that's the difference.( it is on the 250 anyway)
On the 125 they are the same.My Bud has a B and a C.The triples are also the same dimesions except the C has the rubber mounts for the bars.
-
If you arrive at scruitineering with a C swing arm, regardless of where the brake arm is attached I will be sending you away. If you arrive at Scruitineering with proof that your alloy arm is the unit that was available as an option in 77 then I will be happy with that. After all the stuff that went on at after the Nationals I can assure you that as soon as I see an RM the arm is the first thing Im looking at.
On another note I see the rise of after market replica swing arms, I suggest that if you have one you have a period photo or period catalogue showing its availability, only with this proof will it be acceptable.
211
-
the arm is available in the parts listing for the '77 B model Dave, it's the same arm excepting for the lug so I am correct to assume it's legal? I do have the genuine oz suzuki parts book showing availability and photo's of the arms in use in '77.
(http://jb4oia.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pnb0QEkvLJQPObn7uqn4-7Xce3jJNZypssG7K6JZwKlNgLX35kY8CVLHQDNXyr1hJRMQ5rvRRx1qspBalkokm2Q/nd%20november%202009.jpg)
-
On another note I see the rise of after market replica swing arms, I suggest that if you have one you have a period photo or period catalogue showing its availability, only with this proof will it be acceptable.
Great initiative Dave. Unfortunately many people think that because a swingarm is legal in the USA it's got to be legal here. A certain brand of swingarm that are becoming pretty common but they have no historic precedent. The last time it came up there was a 'right kefuffle' to quote Andy in Little Britain, but rules are rules. One particular style of N*^#tion swingarm is most definitely not legal and they're not the only ones The rules are clear... Rule 18.6.0.2 states that "All major components must have been manufactured within the period specified for the class in which the machine competes and be a true reflection of the period depicted. I've yet to see a period photo of anything like some of those swingarms.
-
the arm is available in the parts listing for the '77 B model Dave, it's the same arm excepting for the lug so I am correct to assume it's legal? I do have the genuine oz suzuki parts book showing availability and photo's of the arms in use in '77.
(http://jb4oia.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pnb0QEkvLJQPObn7uqn4-7Xce3jJNZypssG7K6JZwKlNgLX35kY8CVLHQDNXyr1hJRMQ5rvRRx1qspBalkokm2Q/nd%20november%202009.jpg)
Doc whats the date of print on the inside back cover of that parts book
-
On the one I have, it's the fourth edition, printed Dec 77, published Dec 77....
-
ditto Al, 4th Edition December 1977 ;)
-
Doc and TM Bill, I see where your both coming from.
77 arms part # was 6110-41871-019 as and option
78 arms part # was 6110 41891 -
both the above s/arm ARE NOW showing the same part # in updated part # 6110-41892
It is quite clear that back in 1977 an optional arm was available, but using a 78 arm in it's place in title events is pushing the envolope.
lug would have to be difference in above part numbers.
-
So it was available in Dec 77 , does anyone know what month the Rm 125C was released in Australia ?
-
hey i have the same parts book and it was published in april 77 shows the swing arm as an optional item came as a set part no 61100-41881-019 and i just happen 2 have one that im going to put on my 250 c
-
Doc and TM Bill, I see where your both coming from.
77 arms part # was 6110-41871-019 as and option
78 arms part # was 6110 41891 -
both the above s/arm ARE NOW showing the same part # in updated part # 6110-41892
It is quite clear that back in 1977 an optional arm was available, but using a 78 arm in it's place in title events is pushing the envolope.
lug would have to be difference in above part numbers.
I agree Stu i dont think its right to use one in Title events . Docs case is a bit different as he doesn't want to run it in the Titles.
it would be interesting to know how many optional arms were sold in 77 or even later. If you were running a B when the C model came out i cant imagine that you would buy the alloy arm as opposed to upgrading to a superior C model. I cant imagine the optional arm was cheap and would not have been a good move compared to buying the much better C model.
What im getting at is was the optional arm available prior to the realase of the C model (i wouldn't think so ) but if it was then perhaps it should be allowed ???
-
in 1977 i had a rm 125 b i drilled the brake actovating arms just like the works bikes i also made a longer brake arm out of alloy and made a bracket to that fitted it to the frame so i would have a floating rear brake like the works bike so these modes were done before the 78 models came out was i the only one to do this
-
I hate to be a prick about this but someone will be sooner or later if I don't and it may save the shit fight like we saw at the titles this year. I doubt I'll ride any titles events again but I'd really like the air cleared on this subject so everyone knows clearly where they stand for the future. For mine the purpose is pure asthetics and the part was definately an option in the day. As I've stated it seems hypocritical that small items of contention such as this are frowned heavily upon yet PD valves, emulators and such which never existed in the day as quite acceptable. Admittedly the emulators and valves can't be seen but then the swingarm is of the same build as the optional item so appearance is not the issue in this instance either hence where lies the problem?? Bill, the arms were about $250 brand new. I purchased a new arm for my 400C is how I know and incidently my 400C came with an arm with the brake lug welded under which to me says there may have also been an optional arm for the 370B also :D
-
in 1977 i had a rm 125 b i drilled the brake actovating arms just like the works bikes i also made a longer brake arm out of alloy and made a bracket to that fitted it to the frame so i would have a floating rear brake like the works bike so these modes were done before the 78 models came out was i the only one to do this
Probably not , but modifing ala works bikes and using parts from later modoels are 2 completly different things ;)
-
my parts book is printed in april 77 3rd edition so it was out a long time before 78 my swing arm has the lug on it so it has to be legal and it will make its way on to my 78 c when i polish it the funny thing is that my frame is a c it has the mounts for the alloy tank no mounts for the c2 tank but has the bracket on the frame for the full floating brake arm so where dose my frame fit in its numbers are c
-
Doc just like you found pics for me as evidence, find pics of the swing arm being fitted to a bike be it works or a bike ridden down the shops (IIRC was firko's quote) and put that pic in a folder take that to scruitineering at the NATS as eveidence of the swing arm being used within the period. END OF........ ;D
Parts books just show they existed and are not proof themselves of the item being raced/used within the period.The PROBLEM is Doc that a swing arm is a classed MAJOR component while fork internals are not classed as MAJOR components.When fork internals are classed as major then it's out with the PD valves. However anyone with $170 and drill can have a set of PD valves while these swingarms are few and far between.
-
my parts book is printed in april 77 3rd edition so it was out a long time before 78 my swing arm has the lug on it so it has to be legal and it will make its way on to my 78 c when i polish it the funny thing is that my frame is a c it has the mounts for the alloy tank no mounts for the c2 tank but has the bracket on the frame for the full floating brake arm so where dose my frame fit in its numbers are c
C or C2 they are both evo bikes are they not ???
-
yes they are both evo but if the parts book was published in april 77 then it should be legal for the 77 model if it was published in december 77 then by the time it came out it would have been to late for 77 model to use doc if you want my parts book to help id gladly give it to you
-
so is this legal for pre78?
(http://www.vintagefactory.com/FOXRM20.jpg)
-
very nice what head is on it?
-
A mate of mine had the optional alloy swingarm on his RM125b midway through '77.
It came painted black and was available to the public before the C model came out so it should be pre '78 legal especially if you show a copy of the parts book that was printed in april '77.
-
very nice what head is on it?
A FOX head I believe.Pretty rare.
-
thanks for all the imput guys but all I wanted was a 'yes or a no' The swingarm did exist in 1977 and it was used by some of the gun riders and yes it was painted black Johnny, spot on. It doesn't really matter a zac to me as it's already fitted and looks great 8)
-
thanks for all the imput guys but all I wanted was a 'yes or a no' The swingarm did exist in 1977 and it was used by some of the gun riders and yes it was painted black Johnny, spot on. It doesn't really matter a zac to me as it's already fitted and looks great 8)
My answer is yes and yes there seems to be a bit of hypocracy regarding this and the use of modern tech components.
-
Just a final note, during my researching I've also found factual evidence the RM250C was released, raced (Lucas Reynolds) during November 1977 and there was a full test in Trail and Track in December 1977. Does this make an RM250C pre'78 eligable? It should considering the cut-off date for pre'78 is December 1977.
Decided if I do ride it I'm going to run my 125 with Evo, it's going to look a bit out of place but at least there can be no complaints whatsoever about this damned swingarm eligability issue ::)
-
Its goes by what model year the bike is not when that model was avaialble. If it s a78 model its evo if is a 77 model its a pre 78 bike. Simple. For parts it is different. Yes then you can go by avaialbility date, at least i think thats the case with aftermarket bits. if a OEM part was available in december 77 but was only ever fitted to a 78 model and not standard fitment on the 77 model i beleive it shoul not be allowed on the 77 model since the 78 model bike itself was available in late 77 but is a 78 model and has to go in evo.
If it was done by manufacture date, lets say models up mfg up to dec 31 77 that means a 78 model built in december 77 is legal for pre 78 but a 78 model mfg early in 78 lets say January or Frebruary, then they wouldnt be allowed in pre 78 which would be un fair because they are identical. That is why the classes are determined my model years not mfg dates.
-
I'm amazed that anyone could be bothered going to a National meeting with all the BS regarding eligibility. The rules are hypocritical, ambiguous and open to any interpretation anyone wants to put on it. I doubt any bike in any class would be legal if someone wanted to push the issue. Then there's the "blind eye" mentality depending on the rider of said bikes. Glen Bell's CR480 is a prime example amongst a miriad of others. I ride VMX bikes for fun not for full on head f*&k! For what it's worth Doc, I believe your swing arm should be Pre'78 legal. Even though it may be a "C" arm, it's way more "of the period" than a set of tapered bars, and you could argue which of the two gives more of a "performance advantage".
Cheers,
K
-
Just a final note, during my researching I've also found factual evidence the RM250C was released, raced (Lucas Reynolds) during November 1977 and there was a full test in Trail and Track in December 1977. Does this make an RM250C pre'78 eligable? It should considering the cut-off date for pre'78 is December 1977.
The decider on all of this availability stuff is the 'designated model year' It's not so much when the bike was available but what year model the factory designated the bike as.
A notorious example is the M7/Mk8 Bultaco. I've seen written evidence and even a sales slip stating that the Mk8 was available as early as August 1974 but the factory designated the model as the official 1975 model so the Mk 8 doesn't make the cut. Every racing organisation in the free world accepts that fact so it's not just something we did to piss certain Bully owners off. You've got to have a line somewhere.
I'm not so up on Suzukis but suspect that the poor old TM250C Doc refers to is in the same boat as the Mk8 Bultaco, a victim of its factory designation, not so much its release date. If the optional B model swingarm is identical to the C model other than the boss for the floating brake, perhaps it should be allowed as long as it was modified by removing the floating brake boss.
In the end though, is an alloy swingarm going to make your lap times any better?
-
Run what ya brung - lose one place in the trophy hunt for every 'illegal' non period modification ;) ;D.
-
This is starting to border on ridiculous fella's, Mainline, do YOU think that that RM125 Fox replica is pre 78 legal?, that bike has more suspension travel than most EVO bikes!!! and as for the swingarm, well I'm pretty shaw that it never existed back in the day?. Why is it that some people want to change the rules?, we have a set of rules already. Doc, if you want to build a bike that you know doesn't fit the rules for the class YOU want to ride it in, why not ride it in EVO, whats the big deal? If you just want to build a TRICK bike that you've always wanted go for it but why stir it up when you know you can ring Dave Tanner and find out the DO'S and the DONT'S? The big question is " are you going to bring it down and ride it"....... probably not, so why stir it up? ???
-
This is starting to border on ridiculous fella's, Mainline, do YOU think that that RM125 Fox replica is pre 78 legal?, that bike has more suspension travel than most EVO bikes!!! and as for the swingarm, well I'm pretty shaw that it never existed back in the day?. Why is it that some people want to change the rules?, we have a set of rules already. Doc, if you want to build a bike that you know doesn't fit the rules for the class YOU want to ride it in, why not ride it in EVO, whats the big deal? If you just want to build a TRICK bike that you've always wanted go for it but why stir it up when you know you can ring Dave Tanner and find out the DO'S and the DONT'S? The big question is " are you going to bring it down and ride it"....... probably not, so why stir it up? ???
Mainlines RM125 looks like a great TEAM MOTOXFOX bike replica to me. The swingarm ,forks ,shocks,head all look like period correct restored originals .
-
Why is it that some people want to change the rules?,
because the rules blatantly suck, discriminate, are a limitation to the sport and because we can ;) ;D.
-
Why is it that some people want to change the rules?,
because the rules blatantly suck, discriminate, are a limitation to the sport and because we can ;) ;D.
What would you change if it was upto you?
-
no good going off half cocked Davey. If you read the post 'properly' you will see I did not ask for the rules to be changed. All I ask is for some definative clarification on a certain part that was available in the day. I could ride ride evo yes but then the bike will look more out of place than ever and isn't VMX supposed to be all about showcasing MX history as it was?
The big question is " are you going to bring it down and ride it"....... probably not, so why stir it up
the big answer is of course no, I will not be riding it until I get an official answer ;) I've plenty of others to choose from and I accept the rules as my '71 TS125MX will run Evo all because of it's swingarm being from a 1979 TS100..big advantage there too but for mine again it looks period, I built it how I wanted it and that to me is what it's all about.
-
because the rules blatantly suck, discriminate, are a limitation to the sport and because we can .
You've got to be kidding Graeme. I gave you more credit than to make a statement like that. ??? ::) How in f**k do the rules limit the sport? Who do they discriminate against? What's your alternative....surely you've got one mate.
For the life of me I can't see why the rules are so difficult to follow for some people yet simple and easy to follow to most. If people spent less time looking for loopholes and conspiracies and more time building to suit the rules we've already got in place our sport would be in a much stronger position than it's in today.
-
please let's not turn this into an ugly debarcle. I am not stirring shit, critisizing the rules or the sport or the governing body or any individual on the face of the planet, it's just a simple question that should have a simple answer! If there are other issues in other areas of VMX that's cannon fodder for another topic.
Sorry I mentioned the RM250C also kinda..it has absolutley nothing to do with this particular topic and rightly so the C models are Evo, BUT, 'if' the parts book show an alloy arm as an option for these models also then the door is wide open here for contention as well as I've pictures of Gunter, Worrell and a few others top names using the alloy arms in 1977 on both 250's and 370's ;)
just out of curiosity, what ever happened to all the TripleC alloy arms for these early models, I've not seen one since back in the day yet never do you see them on eBay or advertised for sale ???
bottom line, is the swingarm legal for pre'78? if not it'll go evo it really doesn't bother me excepting for the fact the bike will look out of it's era ;)
-
just out of curiosity, what ever happened to all the TripleC alloy arms for these early models, I've not seen one since back in the day yet never do you see them on eBay
I might be wrong but I thought that those Triple C arms were FMF arms imported by Triple C.
At least Triple C was the FMF import back in the day.
-
Sorry I mentioned the RM250C also kinda..it has absolutley nothing to do with this particular topic and rightly so the C models are Evo, BUT, 'if' the parts book show an alloy arm as an option for these models also then the door is wide open here for contention as well as I've pictures of Gunter, Worrell and a few others top names using the alloy arms in 1977 on both 250's and 370's ;)
Aftermarket Alloy arms were available from Thor,FMF,Crossup ,PDI, MotoXFox, etc for all the RM models.
Floating rear brake kits (BTW) were also available .
-
If you arrive at scruitineering with a C swing arm, regardless of where the brake arm is attached I will be sending you away. If you arrive at Scruitineering with proof that your alloy arm is the unit that was available as an option in 77 then I will be happy with that. After all the stuff that went on at after the Nationals I can assure you that as soon as I see an RM the arm is the first thing Im looking at
I thought Dave answered your question pretty positively a day or two back Doc. The sooner many of ous learn to accept that some things just don't fit into our plans for the perfect race bike we'll all be happier. ;D
-
Doc only the Scrutineer on the day will tell you that ;)
Me personally if in doubt i will air on the side of caution and wont try to run it.
Then again personally i would BAN all those FAT BARS , EMULATORS , EXTERNALLY ADJUSTABLE SHOCKS, LOW BOY PIPES , WIDE FOOTPEGS, REVERSE FOLDING LEVERS, MODERN RIDING GEAR, (helmets and neck braces exempt , but must be a plain colour)
PRE 85, PRE 90, DOGS, FAT CHICKS, WOGS, ELEPHANT DRIVERS, RAG HEADS, GREENIES (probably dont get many of them anyway ;)), PEOPLE UNDER 40, GERMANS, WOMAN DRIVERS, ROTARYS, TELEMARKETERS, SPEED LIMITS, MODERN MX 4 STROKES and anyone else who disagrees with my philophosys.
As far as scrutineering goes its my belief were forked, I bought a Shoei helmet in Australia to wear at Australian events only to be told at a major event this year that in didn't comply due to standards markings. Fair enough exept the same bloke passed the forking thing 2 months earlier, it still had the forking sticker on it he put on it 2 months earlier.
When a rule book was produced to show it complied all was well again, so i guess the system works ::)
Perhaps as competitors we need a rule book listing every bike , part , and possible combination of both that are elidgible for every era.
Good luck printing that bastard ::)
-
Not quite Walter :) solly i forgot Asian drivers,(however they are remarkably good for business ;) Spics, Micks, Dagos, Poms, Sweatys, Taffs, Social democrats ;D
-
My wife thinks we are worst than women.!! ::) sorry Alison and Jackie Mac(I know you think we are worst than women). However she gives us ten out of ten for entertainment!! Bill's the best(How's the KX coming along?)
-
Glad you clarified all that, good to see some people still have a sense of humour and don't believe in the PC (politically correct) shit
anyone you like at all Bill ? ;)
-
Im quite fond of the Missus :D actually im been quite fond of other peoples missuses but thats another thread :-[
-
Oh and babies i like babies ;D but i couldn't eat a whole one :-\
-
I had a alloy suzuki option swing arm on my bike in late 77 i also had a full floating rear brake that was hand made by my old man ,Probably from the picture on the frunt of the RM service book which shows them on a 250 A model, We got the on we had from a road racer who had had it most of the year.The welding on it is not a tidy as a C model one.So if it was on my bike ,and i have that bike in my shed then all I need is sworn letters from fellow compeditors from that era, the RM parts books, a letter from the pope that i attend church each Sunday and Im sweet right ?
-
I hate to be a prick about this but someone will be sooner or later if I don't and it may save the shit fight like we saw at the titles this year. I doubt I'll ride any titles events again but I'd really like the air cleared on this subject so everyone knows clearly where they stand for the future. For mine the purpose is pure asthetics and the part was definately an option in the day. As I've stated it seems hypocritical that small items of contention such as this are frowned heavily upon yet PD valves, emulators and such which never existed in the day as quite acceptable.
::)
-
You already know the answer to that John -NO!
-
So where will this 370 fit in when its finished ???
<a href="http://s40.photobucket.com/albums/e204/tmbill/?action=view¤t=RM370002.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e204/tmbill/RM370002.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>(http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e204/tmbill/RM370001.jpg)
-
In the rubbish bin! ;D ;)
-
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
-
Doc
because something was released in 77 dosnt make it legal, the class is for bikes manufactured as the 75,76,77 model year so it has to be the 77 model. This is where the RM has a few issues, there are a lot of mods that happened at this time.
DT
-
Bill , you left out of your list , meter maids , politicians , gays , tax inspectors - you should really try to be more inclusive ;)
It seems rediculous to exclude some thing that looks period like an alloy swingarm , but let people use fatbars , folding levers , emulators , v-force reed blocks etc etc , where are the VMX style police ?, bugger the scrutineers - lets make sure they LOOK right ::)
-
You already know the answer to that John -NO!
So I cant race the exact bike i raced in 1977 and be legal ??? I know im just stirring but that dont make sense to a thuck Kiwi like me.Lucky i think a S model is more fun then eh ;D
-
Bill , you left out of your list , meter maids , politicians , gays , tax inspectors - you should really try to be more inclusive ;)
It seems ridiculous to exclude some thing that looks period like an alloy swingarm , but let people use fatbars , folding levers , emulators , v-force reed blocks etc etc , where are the VMX style police ?, bugger the scrutineers - lets make sure they LOOK right ::)
Cmo'n Geraldo if you include the lightfoot community in the list then whos gonna bugger the scrutineers ???
-
You already know the answer to that John -NO!
So I cant race the exact bike i raced in 1977 and be legal ??? I know im just stirring but that dont make sense to a thuck Kiwi like me.Lucky i think a S model is more fun then eh ;D
John if you can get into the riding gear you wore in 1977 (without looking like a reufgee from the village people) im sure they will let you in ;)
Heres a link to a potential sponsor http://www.healthyfood.co.nz/articles/2007/november/joining-up-to-slim-down-jenny-craig
-
On another note I see the rise of after market replica swing arms, I suggest that if you have one you have a period photo or period catalogue showing its availability, only with this proof will it be acceptable.
211
Could you clarify that abit more please.There are alot of reproduction parts being produced thesedays not only swingarms but frames , pipes ,rear shocks etc.by Novation ,GMC,Vintage Iron,ProFormRacing,DG,Circle F,YSS,Techno Flex, etc.
-
On another note I see the rise of after market replica swing arms, I suggest that if you have one you have a period photo or period catalogue showing its availability, only with this proof will it be acceptable.
211
Could you clarify that abit more please.There are alot of reproduction parts being produced thesedays not only swingarms but frames , pipes ,rear shocks etc.by Novation ,GMC,Vintage Iron,ProFormRacing,DG,Circle F,YSS,Techno Flex, etc.
Pipes & shocks don't come into it as they don’t have to be replica’s to be within the rules.
And please, whinging that some other part is allowable doesn’t mean your part should be.
Doc seems to have put forward some good evidence for the RM swingarm that I think should make it allowable (but I’m not a scrutineer)
If you want to build something outside the norm then put some decent evidence together like this, not hearsay from some mate’s uncles cousin
-
Yes I agree with DOC's point of view also but what I qouted(from 211 kaw) goes beyond and has much more wide ranging implications than just the RM alloy arm issue.
I haven't read that rule about the pipes and shocks Geoff but for sure I agree that you can't spout off about something that you heard or saw without evidence .
Myself I don't run Fat Bars , my suspension is period restored but my swingarm is reproduction.
Just wundering ???
-
This is starting to border on ridiculous fella's, Mainline, do YOU think that that RM125 Fox replica is pre 78 legal?, that bike has more suspension travel than most EVO bikes!!! and as for the swingarm, well I'm pretty shaw that it never existed back in the day?. Why is it that some people want to change the rules?, we have a set of rules already. Doc, if you want to build a bike that you know doesn't fit the rules for the class YOU want to ride it in, why not ride it in EVO, whats the big deal? If you just want to build a TRICK bike that you've always wanted go for it but why stir it up when you know you can ring Dave Tanner and find out the DO'S and the DONT'S? The big question is " are you going to bring it down and ride it"....... probably not, so why stir it up?
jeez, calm down. I wouldn't have a freakin clue whether it was legal. I just remember seeing the pic on a while back and then when this thread came up it reminded me of it. It's a nice looking bike, that's why I asked the question. You could give me an actual works bike to ride and I'd still finish last, so the reason I asked was purely out of interest. Not because I want to cheat.
The rest of the pics of "my" bike ::) are here. http://www.vintagefactory.com/1977_motox_fox_suzuki_rm125.htm
lighten up everyone for gods sake.
-
18.3.0.4 Exhaust may be modified but must generally follow original lines.
Can’t actually see one for shocks but their isn’t any thing to say shocks must be original either.
Just
18.5.0.8 a & e which states that travel should be within 7/4 limits. (this is one of those rules that needs to be moved from the general section to the pre 75 section)
18.5.0.1 Replica frames are acceptable provided they follow original lines etc. etc.
18.7.3 Table of acceptable components pre 65
Handlebars – all including alloy
I believe this rule was made to alloy pre 65 the convenience of using any bar & not be restricted to only using steel bars.
This was an early rule that didn’t foresee fat bars & the rule didn’t move with the times.
I don’t really care about the use of fat bars other than they just don’t look right.
I see a lot of guys bang on about adjustable shocks but from 5 feet they just look like shocks to me.
-
Why is it that some people want to change the rules?,
because the rules blatantly suck, discriminate, are a limitation to the sport and because we can ;) ;D.
What would you change if it was upto you?
Pre'78 would mean pre'78. The 77 VB Monty and the 77 Husky should run in pre 78. The designated year rule that affects the Bully as mentioned by Firko should be changed or interpreted differently. Hows that for starters? 8) :).
-
gee i like your bike mainline ::)
i have a thor alloy swingarm on my rm370
with non floating brakes
works good looks good and staying there ;)
-
Took you 12 hours to come up with that, your mind must have been working overtime ;D. If you read the rule book it explains why, I think? ;) Help me somebody here.
-
Geoff
18.3.0.4 basically then anything goes execpt change an up pipe to a down pipe or visa versa.???
18.5.0.8 Agreed.
18.5.0.1 So doe sthat mean a replica of a period aftermarket that was a modification from standard specs is allowed?
Fat bars and the adjustable shocks argument only really came up after the pre 78 protests at the nats.
I agree they don't look right and if they are of no advantage why go to the trouble of fitting them?
Anyway I think that they are covered along with the shocks in several clauses in the Evo AND PRE 85 sections. I wouldn't care that much either except for the hypocracy that DOC also pointed out.
Rubber mounted handlebars and welded on brake tabs look the same from 5 feet (showing you age .we went metric in 73) away also.
cheers
-
[/quote]Pre'78 would mean pre'78. The 77 VB Monty and the 77 Husky should run in pre 78. The designated year rule that affects the Bully as mentioned by Firko should be changed or interpreted differently. Hows that for starters? 8) :).
[/quote]
Hows that? For me personally that would be a change that I totally agree with .
-
18.5.0.1 So doe sthat mean a replica of a period aftermarket that was a modification from standard specs is allowed?
Yes, it's generally accepted so long as you can prove that what you have is what was available.
Some common parts aren't questioned, well, because they are common, but oddities will need some documentation.
My CZ frames are replica's of USA aftermarket frames & they are accepted worlwide.
Same goes for the HL's
We may have gone metric Brent but I still have 2 feet ;D
Davey, go polish your stands ;D
-
18.5.0.1 So doe sthat mean a replica of a period aftermarket that was a modification from standard specs is allowed?
Yes, it's generally accepted so long as you can prove that what you have is what was available.
Some common parts aren't questioned, well, because they are common, but oddities will need some documentation.Mines a banana arm ,I'm using the same ohlins of a ktm that I did in 1980 .There were lots of banana arms around in the day ,fox,lop, mugen but mines isnt anexact copy of any of them.So I might be up shit creek .
My CZ frames are replica's of USA aftermarket frames & they are accepted worlwide.
Same goes for the HL's
We may have gone metric Brent but I still have 2 feet ;D I knows dat and they are usually pretty firm on the ground .Thats what I like in you old fella.25 years next feb ya know!!!!
-
]Mines a banana arm ,I'm using the same ohlins of a ktm that I did in 1980 .There were lots of banana arms around in the day ,fox,lop, mugen but mines isnt anexact copy of any of them.So I might be up shit creek .[/b][/i]
You'll be right Brent, it's only ever a problem if you win ;D ;D
25 years next feb ya know!!!
Hey thats right. 25 years & I still haven't scanned all my slides ::)
-
This is getting like the sidecars , the ones from that period want it they it was and the newbis want it the way they want it to be . Perhaps Cyber VMX is the new class ;D
Im not a newby , I set my bike up as close as possible to the one I had 30 years ago.I did that for nostalgic reasons and also because I knew it worked good.
I suppose the point is that I didnt specifically build it for a one of event. I have 2 good years of racing on it so far so perhaps I shouldn't be worried about an extra 9 laps at a Nat event.
-
[/quote]
You'll be right Brent, it's only ever a problem if you win ;D ;DYer right .I don't have that problem often enough but last competitor beats the first spectator everytime .Right?
25 years next feb ya know!!!
Hey thats right. 25 years & I still haven't scanned all my slides ::)
[/quote]
-
Im not a newby , I set my bike up as close as possible to the one I had 30 years ago.I did that for nostalgic reasons and also because I knew it worked good.
I suppose the point is that I didnt specifically build it for a one of event. I have 2 good years of racing on it so far so perhaps I shouldn't be worried about an extra 9 laps at a Nat event.
Yes and that's the hard part about it --you or most vmxer's didn't build a bike for a one off event--the eligibility has to be pickup up at club level ,On any Sunday. 8) Preserving an era.
-
yeah I know, Doc, have another cup of shut the phuck up! :D this debating is all very entertaining but there is still no simple yes or no. Sorry Dave I don't hate you or MA or the rule book and I'm not trying to send you bald (like me ;D), I'm pushing the point because they 'were' available and for someone like me I'd have had more chance buying the optional genuine swingarm from Northside Suzuki or Mayfairs than I'd ever have had buying the big name US stuff which I only ever saw on super bling or big budget race bikes or in magazine.
I can't recall as a kid seeing accessory swingarms on the shelf at the local bike shop so what's the difference, both would have to have been ordered? Here I'm offering up an item that was around and is still around locally today if you hunt, it offers up a little tarting up without removing the bikes appearance from the era. Although not in any great numbers in the day but then I don't know anyone who ran a Thor or DG or FMF or any other brand as we simply couldn't afford them. Big deal it's an alloy swingarm from '78, it's appearance' for all rules, intents and purposes is just like the original '77 B model optional arm yet still it isn't admisable? Allow or disallow this item and the whole deal comes to an end. Evo or any class is fine by me as I won't be at the pointy end when ever I ride but the rule needs to catagorically state one way or another so we know if we can use it ;) the topic really (and probably me) sucks and I'm sorry peoples but if they are not allowed just say so. It's not about rule changes or anything like that it is not the slightest, it's not about cheating or pushing the boundries, it's about ya or nah and that's all. ;)
-
Doc try this formula with the original and then with the alloy one :) see if makes a difference ???
http://www.classicmotorsport.org/ecmo/calculatie/motocycle_calc_uk.htm
-
Doc, why dont you talk to Dave about it, get all the information required, submit it to MA or whoever and see if you can get the swingarm allowed. I dont think it will pass the way you mounted the brake stay ( would have to have the tabs welded on the swingarm as per "B" arm ) and definitly no floating brake. That way it's all cleared up for ever!. You still carn't run C forks though mate as all of the part numbers are different and they have more travel!!!, anyway thats my thoughts on it, I hope this helps, cheers John.
-
Geez Bill, now he's gonna go into "overload", .....Warning.... warning.... danger Will Robinson...... ;D ;D
-
I thought Dave answered it back on page 2, it's just been a soap opera since then.
If you arrive at scruitineering with a C swing arm, regardless of where the brake arm is attached I will be sending you away. If you arrive at Scruitineering with proof that your alloy arm is the unit that was available as an option in 77 then I will be happy with that.
I would consider proof as...
Magazine articles showing the arm being used, (doubt you could use Trail & Track photo's as it was hard enough to tell what brand you were looking at let alone the swingarm ::))
Receipt for one sold (I imagine next to impossible to find although I have all my receipts for bikes I bought.)
Sales Brochures.
Parts book, although for some reason the rule book says this isn't enough? The parts book dated late in the year I would be a bit suss about because it may be an upgrade part for the following year but if you have a parts book dated early in the year then it would add more weight to it.
Please keep in mind though I am not a scrutineer.
I think Doc asked a fair question & it's good to get these things out in the open. It's not about changing any rule but establishing if a part was available
-
I can't recall as a kid seeing accessory swingarms on the shelf at the local bike shop so what's the difference, both would have to have been ordered? Here I'm offering up an item that was around and is still around locally today if you hunt, it offers up a little tarting up without removing the bikes appearance from the era. Although not in any great numbers in the day but then I don't know anyone who ran a Thor or DG or FMF or any other brand as we simply couldn't afford them. Big deal it's an alloy swingarm from '78, it's appearance' for all rules, intents and purposes is just like the original '77 B model optional arm yet still it isn't admisable?
It's not about rule changes or anything like that it is not the slightest, it's not about cheating or pushing the boundries, it's about ya or nah and that's all. ;)
Doc, unwittingly maybe you have answered your own question ??
-
I have found this really simple to understand
If the OEM part is listed in the 1977 model parts book/microfiche as a standard part or optional part - then YES it is allowed pre 78
If the OEM part is listed in the 1978 model parts book/microfiche as a standard part or optional part and is not also listed in the 77 model parts book - then NO its not allowed for pre 78
Aftermarket 'major' components are a little different
eg a swingarm.
If you have one that you can provide evidence/proove that the one you have was available for purchase or made up to dec 31st 1977 - then yes it is allowed pre 78
If you have one that was bought or made after 31st of dec 1977 and you can proove that it is exacltly the same as the one that could have been bought during 77 - then yes it is allowed.
For example only. If DG made 2 swing arms for a 77 RM 125 during 1977 and these went to a dealer. You bought one of these on the last day of december 1977 and still have it now, then yes it is allowed pre 78. If your friend saw yours, thought it was great and went to the shop as soon as they opened in January 78 and bought the other swingarm and still has it now then that is also allowed. These DG swingarms for the 77 RM125 were so popular that they had to start making some more during 1978. Any one who bought one of these made during 78 or later would also still be able to use one of these in pre 78 as long as they can provide proof that it is the same as the DG swing arms sold or made during 77 for the 77 RM125.
And lastly if you have a aftermarket replica/reproduction of a swingarm, then you need to show proof and it has to be/look pretty much exactly the same. This could be hard to proove especially if you do not have evidence showing dimensions of the swingarm you have replicated. Would be a tough one to police/proove i think.
-
I have found this really simple to understand
If the OEM part is listed in the 1977 model parts book/microfiche as a standard part or optional part - then YES it is allowed pre 78
If the OEM part is listed in the 1978 model parts book/microfiche as a standard part or optional part and is not also listed in the 77 model parts book - then NO its not allowed for pre 78
Aftermarket 'major' components are a little different
eg a swingarm.
If you have one that you can provide evidence/proove that the one you have was available for purchase or made up to dec 31st 1977 - then yes it is allowed pre 78
If you have one that was bought or made after 31st of dec 1977 and you can proove that it is exacltly the same as the one that could have been bought during 77 - then yes it is allowed.
Good post Leith but whats the difference between a period aftermarket or reproduced replica made arm to the proven same specs as a 77 items and a 78 arm thats been put back to these same specs.Specification wise none .In theory one could get a GMC arm made up from scratch to original specs and if you were capable you could even make your own replica and that would be okay but you cant take a 78 arm and make your own modifications to achieve the same specs???Come on.
In the meantime another guy is building up a bike with tapered bars, PDvales and ext adj shocks that not even the works bikes of Rahier,Watanabe and LaPorte had in 77 but its not an issue?? Come on.
BTW with the issue here being a brake stay mount tab I scanned this from an MXA 1977(http://i868.photobucket.com/albums/ab241/motomaniac_photos/mx%20magazine%20scans/img146.jpg)
-
I dont know, i dont make the rules or necessarily agree with all of them.
-
yeah good points Leith but this is getting really really over tech and the simplicity that should be in place just doesn't have the clear cut answer.
Bill, I'll answer you first as yours' is easist..the optional swingarm is of exactly the same measurements as the C swingarm but this is not so for the aftermarket arms. So which arm is closer to the actual period items in both looks and dimensions?? ;)
http://www.skypoint.com/members/pfuhlman/swingarm-measurements.txt (http://www.skypoint.com/members/pfuhlman/swingarm-measurements.txt)
As for optional parts, e.g. I can run all the 'pre'75 TS or TM kit or aftermarket parts I can get my grubby hands on including aftermarket alloy swingarms to replace the conventional steel item. I can use all the bling parts under the sun but ask if 1 can use the genuine 1977 optional or 'kit' arm on an RM125B and all hell breaks loose.
I'm sorry for the bullshit going down here, it's not about winning or trophie hunting, it's not here to stir shit. It's here because there seems to be some unknown ruling that dis-allows this period correct item.
I can near bet the majority of the aftermarket swingarms now in use in VMX downunder were most likely imported from the US 'after' the fact. Where lies the difference??
this is allowed
(http://www.skypoint.com/members/pfuhlman/pictures/thor.jpg)
but this isn't..I'm sorry but I don't see any reasoning why
(http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a205/Doctor_Suzuki/RM2009.jpg?t=1257366101)
Davey the C forks may have a different part number but if I swap the caps and remove the internal spacers then I challenge you to spot the difference without micrometers ;) the travel can easily be bought back into legality if infact is is any different to the B, from all my experience they offer exactly the same travel, performance and exactly the same appearance. This is where I'm finding it hard to understand..you can internally mod all the forks you like with late model internals so long as they appear externally the same yet I can't use the C forks when infact all they are are B forks with aircaps and 'maybe just maybe' some slight change to the damper rod or shim stack. ???
I will take this up with Dave and MA because to me it seems an inconsistancy. Be nice to know what others thought first though for fear I'm missing the obvious hence the post.
-
Chris my personal take on it is that pre 78 is a unique class . It caters for that 1st generation of LTR bikes and in my biased opinion the Suzuki RMB range were and are the best bikes for the class. The suzuki RMB range did not leave the factory with Aluminium swinging arms they had steel ones .
One of the most visually distinctive features of the following years RMC models was and is the aluminium swinging arm .
Did any other production bike in 1977 have an aluminium swinging arm as standard equipment ?
The aftermarket swinging arms that were and are available for the RM B models do have a different look and an identity of there own . Herein lies the difference , bolt in a RM C or RM B optional SW arm and it looks like the following year models part, where as an aftermarket SW arm looks just that aftermarket , trick , special or in the case of the one in the other thread ugly .
Using C forks without the extenders , who would pick up on that ? not me .
Floating rear brake on your RM B as long as its of your own design and DOES NOT USE PARTS FROM LATER MODEL BIKES go for it.
I struggled with the no riding up into pre 78 rule on a TM 125 , if i modified the frame so the shocks can be laid down for pre 78 and put back up straight for pre 75 at the same meeting why cant i ride both classes on the same bike.
But when in a previous thread it was pointed out that pre 78 is a class for those 1st gen LTRS only FAIR ENOUGH :)
I know you want an official answer and of course i cant give you that ::) just an opinion . The evidence seems to stack up that those arms were available in 77 as an option . However for me they dont look right in pre 78 :-X
Either way i have 4 of those arms 4 sale , 2 with tabs 2 without pm me if interested .
-
ok Bill here's my take. If the arms are painted black will it still not look right? The reason the C swingarms may look a little out of place is only in our generations eyes i.e. we never saw many of the optional swingarms fitted because ppl all wanted the bling psych out aftermarket jobs and very few even knew of the genuine optional arms existance. If we did see the optional arm we probably didn't realize as they were painted black. Fact is, they did exist and in the correct era and that's what the rule book requires. The reason they may not look right to some people is the simple fact they are polished not black and the polished look obviously makes it stand out and grab a little more attention as do the alloy aftermarket jobs. Suzuki during the '75-'77 era were leading the way so this alloy option doesn't surprise me given everyone else was still using steel. It was an option, it exists and it's within the era. Someone mentioned their parts book also lists the arm and the book was printed early in 1977 so it's not a '78 only thing by any stretch of the imagination. Whether we all knew of it or not the fact is in black and white it exists and it was an option for the B. I dunno, I can't say anymore as the facts speak for themselves, how can you discount something that exists? I really don't mind either way but and would like to draw a close to this topic but I can foresee problems arising if someone contests eligability as it stands because it does conform to all the rules regardless. Whether it sits right in our eyes/ideals seems to be the deciding factor :-\
-
You know its funny you say that , iv'e got a 250 /370 optional arm with tag that i got out of the states some time ago and thats painted black . I thought somone had done it after the fact but maybe thats how it came new ???
-
Is Dave T the only Eligibility person for Classic MX ??
cheers
-
No
-
The optional RM B arms DID come black from the factory ,I had to paint strip mine to look flash IN 1977!! I also agree with Bill on the floating brake. providing it was made from the B hub and had no C parts it should be legal .I had it I was there!
-
is Dave T getting really pissed off with this topic and me? I'd say there is no doubt YES along with everyone else and again Dave and everyone else, I'm really sorry to be the stickbrain continually dragging it up :( there could be a simple fix. A slight amendment to read 'Optional (Suzuki) aluminium swingarms are not permitted' It still wouldn't sit right with me but at least I'd know whether I'm pre'78 or Evo before the fact and there can be no disputing by anybody forevermore. End of problem ;)
-
Never apologize for what you believe in-preserve the era. 8)
Quote from below:If your looking for something to be written into the rule book then it's not going to happen from typing something on here.
Go forth and concur Doc. :)
-
The only annoying thing Doc is you can't accept the answer youv'e been given.
I will point it out again, from page 2
If you arrive at scruitineering with a C swing arm, regardless of where the brake arm is attached I will be sending you away. If you arrive at Scruitineering with proof that your alloy arm is the unit that was available as an option in 77 then I will be happy with that.
On another note I see the rise of after market replica swing arms, I suggest that if you have one you have a period photo or period catalogue showing its availability, only with this proof will it be acceptable.
211
If your looking for something to be written into the rule book then it's not going to happen from typing something on here.
It's been this way as long as I can remember, it applies to all after market parts but the common parts are accepted easier becuase theyv'e been seen so many time before.
I don't think we need special rules just for Suzuki owners. (then again maybe we do ;D)
-
yup okay, I'll follow it up via the correct channels. Geoff, it wouldn't matter if it were Honda, Yamaha, Kawasaki, Bultaco, Montesa or the myriad of other marques. The question has quite rightly been answered and I can assume with a parts book in hand it's eligable.
-
[quote
I don't think we need special rules just for Suzuki owners. (then again maybe we do ;D)
[/quote]
Of course we do Geoff ::) otherwise what will mere mortals aspire to :D
-
I can assume with a parts book in hand it's eligable.
I would have thought so too, but strangely.....
18.2.1.2
The onus of proof of eligibilty shall rest upon the rider or entrant of the machine. Service & parts manual publication dates are not proof of eligibilty
Not sure of the logic of that one other than you may need something else to show that it was actually used.
Have you any magazines or other sales info?
-
I could find 'proof' if I dug around Geoff but to be honest I've had a total skinfull of the topic and hypocracy. A simple yes or no answer is not forthcoming and that's all I asked. The arm is fitted and it stays, it is era and as far as I am concerned that is all that matters. If the bike only gets ridden at Classic Dirt then it's not going to make a zac of difference. End of issue ;)
-
A simple yes or no answer is not forthcoming and that's all I asked.
With due respect Doc, Dave T answered your question most positively back on page one.
If you feel so strongly about this ( and it's pretty obvious that you do), get all of your written proof together and go through the correct process via your club. If you reckon that 'the process' is not worth going through I'm afraid you'll just have to cop it sweet.
-
What's it matter when you could buy aluminum swingarms all day long in 1977?
(http://www.vintagefactory.com/Vintage%20catalogs%20137.jpg)
-
Interesting advert that one....do you have a date of the magazine it appeared in...I ask because it refers to Ohlins being for sale....to my knowledge they were not available until 1978... ???
-
do you have a date of the magazine it appeared in
Its out the 1979 FMF catalogue. ;)
If you arrive at scruitineering with a C swing arm, regardless of where the brake arm is attached I will be sending you away. If you arrive at Scruitineering with proof that your alloy arm is the unit that was available as an option in 77 then I will be happy with that.
As far as i can see it you cant just show proof it was an option available in 77, it has to be an available listed option for a 77 model. You cant use an OEM swing arm that was available in late 77 that was listed as a option for a 78 model. It has to be listed as an option for a 77 model.
Bottom line is was it listed as an available option in the 77 parts list?
-
Interesting advert that one....do you have a date of the magazine it appeared in...I ask because it refers to Ohlins being for sale....to my knowledge they were not available until 1978... ???
I have a page somewhere, that I downloaded from the Ohlins.com website, that says that Ohlins remote reservoir shocks were available from 1976 when the company was founded . To my knowledge, they were first factory fitted to a production bike on the 1978 Husqvarna CR250/390. They were also fitted to the KTM that Gennady Moiseev won the 1978 World 250 MX title on.
-
Interesting advert that one....do you have a date of the magazine it appeared in...I ask because it refers to Ohlins being for sale....to my knowledge they were not available until 1978... ???
I have a page somewhere, that I downloaded from the Ohlins.com website, that says that Ohlins remote reservoir shocks were available from 1976 when the company was founded . To my knowledge, they were first factory fitted to a bike on the 1978 Husqvarna CR250/390. They were also fitted to the KTM that Gennady Moiseev won the 1978 World 250 MX title on.
Thats right Huskies came with Girlings on the first Mikkola replicas but Mikkola didnt use them - at least in 76 for his 250 title - pretty sure he used were Ohlins.
-
Actually the Company history says that Moiseevs bike was the first World champ bike with Ohlins.
Maybe Mikkola had Hulco's like Leith suggested on another thread.
-
I am certain that Mikkola used GG's in 1974...you can see the test of one of his bikes in the book "The Big Leap" ...by 1976 when he was completing in the 250 GP's ....well maybe Ohlins by then...but ...HVA were still using GG on the production bikes until 1978....even then the Ohlins only appeared on the 390's....sorry about the hijack.. :)
-
I am certain that Mikkola used GG's in 1974...you can see the test of one of his bikes in the book "The Big Leap" ...by 1976 when he was completing in the 250 GP's ....well maybe Ohlins by then...but ...HVA were still using GG on the production bikes until 1978....even then the Ohlins only appeared on the 390's....sorry about the hijack.. :)
Yer but Mikkola won in 76 so if he was using Ohlins they wouldn't say that Moiseev was the first worldchamp to use.For sure Mikkola wasn't using the GG's from the previous years in 76 .What ever they were they don't look like GG's . Haha ..hijack ?what Hijack ? Have you read some of the other theads? At least we are not looking for spelling and punctuation mistakes :D
-
I think that a thread hijack is ok when the thread is 9 pages long & the subject has probably ground to a halt anyway. At least the hijack is related to vintage motocross (which is what this forum is supposed to be about), not road racing or sidecars ;). On the original subject of the thread , I think you would have to feel hard done by if you turned up with alloy O.E.M Suzuki swingarm (even if it was off a C model & had the lug welded on in the right spot) on your RM125B & a parts manual from early '77 showing it as an option, only to have it knocked back .
I am still scratching my head about TM Bill's trivia question about if there were any '77 models that came out standard with an alloy swingarm . I can't think of any , but I wouldn't be surprised if something exotic came out with one . I know that the '74 Ossa Phantom came with an alloy arm, but I think that they went back to steel on later models .
-
16.4.0.9 Major components that were manufactured
outside a specific period, but which are
visually indistinguishable from period
components shall be eligible for that period.
If I read the rule above as it is written and apply it to the photo of the swingarm on the first page of this never ending debacle I would have to answer your question Doc with .......... Yes ................it should be allowed. The swingarm was available "in the period" so even if it was manufactured after 77 it should be allowed as it has been shown to be a period component in both parts books prior to 78 and also in publications.
The MOMS do say that "Service and Parts Manual publication dates are not proof of eligibility." But the MOMS do not say that these publications cannot be used to establish a year of manufacture of a major component, more just that the existence of parts and service manuals does not automatically mean that parts listed in a publication are acceptable for competition in a certain period.
But, I guess, It will take a scruitineer to accept a competitor to compete with this style of swingarm in both belief and evidence that the component is acceptable for the period and another competitor to protest its use to really sort this out. What a shame for a sport that is meant to be both competitive and also fun.
-
Parts books are NOT proof of eligablity.Why because of 'Homologation Specials' etc RA 125's being a good example factories printed the part number and the option for FACTORY racers and to get around rules. All Doc has to do is to find evidence not a parts book of the swing arm beng raced within the period.
-
Could i turn up on one of these in pre78?
http://motorbikearchives.com/Features/Bike-Set-Up/JD-Suzuki-RM125B-Package-Racer-1978.html
-
short answer NO :)
-
agree
-
So why should Doc or anyone have to provide "proof" when rule 16.4.0.9 is applied?
Cheers,
K
-
Based on 16.4.0.9, all one should have to do is to prove that their post 1978 swingarm is visually indestinguishable from the so called optional version that was available in 1977. That would involve removing/modifying the different bosses between the fixed/floating brake.
Published proof by way of photographic or dated advertising evidence is essential. I've recently gone through this to legitimise the alloy B&S swingarm on my pre '70 Maico. It took a lot of searching but now have advertising and manufacturer proof that the Boyd and Stellings swingarms were available for sale in 1969.
-
16.4.0.9 Major components that were manufactured
outside a specific period, but which are
visually indistinguishablefrom period
components shall be eligible for that period.
The '77 had a steel arm and the '78 had an alloy. Isn't this what its all about? That IS visually distinguishable.
If I read 16.4.0.9 as it was written, if a major part looks exactly the same then its okay to use. In this case it isn't and is not after market.
I think it was a good question that Doc asked as there is a swing arm in a parts book which makes one ask the question. What hasn't happened from what has been said so far (unless I have missed it and will stand corrected) is that nobody has said that they had one or saw one back in '77.
Its more logical to assume that the swing arm does not conform to pre '78.
Like Doc says , he won't be running it in a national title and that's when it really counts.
Its a free country but I personally wouldn't run it though as it is indistinguishable from a '78 Suzuki arm which is why there is an issue in the first place.
-
16.4.0.9 Major components that were manufactured
outside a specific period, but which are
visually indistinguishable from period
components shall be eligible for that period
This clause is part of the regs for roadracing - not sure if we should be quoting it in regard to motocross racing ???
-
Firstly,
16.4.0.9 is from the historic road section, I think this is well written & should also be in the classic MX section along with ….
16.4.0.7
16.4.0.8
16.4.0.10
16.4.0.12
Secondly,
The proof needed is to show that it was available & used.
16.4.0.9 basicaly says that if the 78 part is the same as 77 part then it is acceptable.
And it’s not, the 77 part was steel & a different shape.
But it appears that the 78 part is the same as the 77 optional part, so the only proof needed is that the optional part existed.
This goes for all parts including the PDI & Brads swingarm in other threads.
They look period to me but I don’t know when they were actually produced.
This might all sound very anal, (it does to me when I type it) but the other option is open slather on all parts which I believe would lead to the “spirit of the era” being lost forever.
As for the “yes or no” answer, well it’s no surprise to me that any scrutineer won’t definitely say based on internet chat room proof, they would want to see it “in the flesh.
The above add is one reason why, first claimed to be from 77 then outed as 79.
I see many people want to use the fat bar hypocrisy as a reason to run some later part but I find this quite poor reasoning.
“Joe Blogs is running an electronic ignition, even though I can’t see it I should therefore be able to run the later barrel, swingarm, case, fork etc.”
I guess there is a bit of hypocrisy their, but the line drawn in the sand is simple, show that the part was around & you can use it.
-
I'm backing Doc 100% on this one. I was racing in '77 on an RM125B when the Phil Thew Moto bikes started using the optional Suzuki alloy swingarm on their current B models long before the '78 C had seen light of day. As i said earlier a mate of mine then bought the optional Alloy swingarm for his RM125B through Phil Thew Moto and it came painted black. I also have the Suzuki parts book dated April 1977 that lists the Alloy swingarm as an optional part for the '77 B model.
How much more proof do you need??
-
Well I do stand corrected as you had said it previously . So I imagine a magazine photo is what is required? Certainly is worth the effort to prove it that is for sure.
-
Thanks Johnny (and anyone else who agree's) I wasn't overly concerned but its got my hackles up a little now so I'll follow through. We know for certain they existed so now all we need is photographic proof showing 1 fitted to a B in 1977 since the part listing is not valid no matter what the date of print. I am sure Mr A. Gunter used these arms during his titles assult in this era, the pic below proves my theory that the 250/370 aluminium arms were available for gun riders who had a little factory backing or the right connections with Suzuki Australia.
The picture below taken at Adelaide in 1977..now we just need a pic of the 125B he won the title on that year and I reckon we'll have all the proof needed. On a side note, this 'is/was' our homegrown MX scene and not the US and not factory bikes! ;)
(http://abgjsa.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pWji4TU8wGpfeWHzBZ0OvPsXjzGHnD9n1fu32SOwF9Hp2pQBnsrhrlK6JEE8rlFaT5cw7Q7dOlB8O250rcUydU-_-rZEvmExB/1977%20Adelaide%20A%20Gunter%20RM250B.jpg)
to worry about the bike losing it's pre'78 personality, I think this picture below also points out it doesn't change the bikes appearance as much as people would think. It certainly doesn't look out of era on what will be my poor mans 'Gaston Replica' ;D ::)
(http://abgjsa.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pz5rl8DPOPQcju2Ab4ofICYZENxoblxDS2_woBX0Esx5FTFx1zf6yzNZQlykwFZK9dqjfF2-sTwkk4c4R-UM-kgVjUvgUgdN3/rm2009%20061109%20002.jpg)
-
(http://i868.photobucket.com/albums/ab241/motomaniac_photos/mx%20magazine%20scans/img141.jpg)
-
mmm..not particularly clear is it :P..could be my failing eyesight too :( could be any arm I suppose. I also suppose a quick email to Mr Tony Gunter may be on the agenda. I know last time I asked a question of Anthony I didn't quite get the reply I was hoping for so maybe 2nd time around he'll do betterer :P ;D
-
Where was that from Brent?
I wonder if this mysterious & probably very old by now Jeff Keen still has the original photo's?
-
its from MotocrossAction mag nov 1977.
i will try and scan a bit better. :)
-
I wonder if this mysterious & probably very old by now Jeff Keen still has the original photo's?
:D :D :D and how would you go about finding him after so long even if he did still exist! :P ;D
-
is this better ?(http://i868.photobucket.com/albums/ab241/motomaniac_photos/mx%20magazine%20scans/img148.jpg)
-
You already know the answer to that John -NO!
Maybe getting close to a YES ;) ;D
-
FMF against DG RM125 CIRCA 1977
(http://i868.photobucket.com/albums/ab241/motomaniac_photos/mx%20magazine%20scans/img143.jpg)
-
Looks like "the Grunt" is running a mean sized torque arm....and golly gee...a "B" optional swingarm with a floating rear brake set-up! ;D
-
:P it really does look like the optional arm on the Grunt's bike doesn't it :) I'd say that's the 250 again. I've seen my swingarm from that angle (don't ask! ::)) and it looks oh so similar if not the same with the big ridge on the inside edges. And yes, floating brakes too I see Monaro..that ones really a non issue though as my F11 from '73 has full floating rear brakes standard so it was old school technology (possibly useless theory) by 1977 and near everyone who was anyone in MX had it fabricated and in use by '75 ;) seems we are getting closer. Thanks! I don't feel quite so bad now :P they still maybe outlawed for pre'78 but we have proven existance ;D
-
just noticed, you can see the brake stay mount still attached under the arm. Near bet my left nut that has to be a genuine optional arm for the 250, the option was offered in the US for the 250C which had the steel arm before the C2 was ever released so they did exist for the big bores also I'd say. I'm going to send Mr Gunter an email and ask, I just hope if it is the real deal that he may also have a decent picture of his 125B as that is a local bike, on local tracks and in the correct era. I can't see any possible reason it would fail as being acceptable proof of existance ;)
-
Could be a bit like the famous RGV 'kit' manual, that was full of fruity bits with official part numbers, problem was only a select few knew that parts existed to take your RGV to F3 spec were available back in the day. Suzuki Aust denied all knowledge of course as 250cc Production was all the rage ;). Nobody ever knew why the press fleet went like rockets and the showroom bikes a little dull.
-
mmm..does sound a little familiar and why would they want to make it common knowledge. Being genuine parts they were never advertised and back in the day to see the parts books or fiche in detail was like asking for an appointment with God :D
-
The 3 captures below I've just taken from dvd footage of the 1976/77 Toowoomba Mountain Man meeting. The date cannot be disputed but this time it's on the RM370 ;)
(http://abgjsa.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pj-V-Ee1XHb8VbRaKRFAer9bPBXcfsTh-BfJM6qdMe6haQXpih8rQAwJav1yKiIAk0hGOxf3C1qkW4utAELnMmg_LBU0NBuCD/1977%20toowoomba%20%20mountain%20man%20A%20Gunter%20RM370.%202.JPG)
(http://abgjsa.bay.livefilestore.com/y1px9wBh_Pa2tzytEg16vmcp1MIhfKXQocpALIcSlhn6PbZqcYrXfjnxzbmb9MeJfIqt-PGlEoS5jLcnuEddFiKE-FWHaw3q-Wb/1977%20toowoomba%20%20mountain%20man%20A%20Gunter%20RM370..JPG)
(http://abgjsa.bay.livefilestore.com/y1poYClq_vfvy-LRPeSu6rDHoETUWzdoppFjSjAkY3gylBFmh7AaogAnfF9pXwK6cVkPT2LVKsZJ2QUEaXovwtjUrnABjDsnpKH/1977%20toowoomba%20%20mountain%20man%20A%20Gunter%20RM370.%201.JPG)
-
Doc,
You are a legend… keep going you never know where all this will end up!!!!!
VMX42
Who knows, you might end up getting pinged by the scrutineers for non-standard black paint?
-
Looks like Goeff Worrell to me. When are you posting the vidoe clip?
-
:D as soon as my poor computer stops spazzing whenever I try to decode from DVD to divx motomaniac. I'll have a computer clean out tonight and give it another go but posting anything of any quality and duration online isn't so easy as most free sites compress the vids to save bandwidth. I can't even copy the disc as I 'have insuffient space available on drive C:' bla bla bla..will have another go asap and if I can't get it done maybe someone else can. The dvd was given to me by a generous forum member a while back, it has no (none, nada, zilch, zero) sound but lots of great footage. It may well be Geoff Worrell as I was suspicious of his bikes using the arms also but pictures I found show a Thor arm or something. Not discounting it isn't he though ;)
to be entirely honest..I wouldn't like to see a rush of B's with alloy arms so I'm feeling a little guilty also. I just wanted to use 1 on my bike for the heck of it to make it a little different. Really should have just painted it black and shut my mouth till questioned but then it would have started anyway so I dunno, suppose we all do things we sort of regret sometimes :-\
-
to be entirely honest..I wouldn't like to see a rush of B's with alloy arms so I'm feeling a little guilty also. I just wanted to use 1 on my bike for the heck of it to make it a little different. Really should have just painted it black and shut my mouth till questioned but then it would have started anyway so I dunno, suppose we all do things we sort of regret sometimes :-\
Don't worry about it Doc, I know your intentions are good. It is just a bit of fun shaking up the can sometimes.
VMX42
-
That's John Walmsley in those pics.. '76 Qld Champion.
-
just noticed, you can see the brake stay mount still attached under the arm. Near bet my left nut that has to be a genuine optional arm for the 250, the option was offered in the US for the 250C which had the steel arm before the C2 was ever released so they did exist for the big bores also I'd say.
Doc,thats what made me think it was the 125 and not the 250 as you said.
You are correct as i zoomed it and noticed the clutch cable position (except he's running it behind the expansion chamber!) and the full size hubs etc etc.
I'm all for what you are doing as i see nothing wrong.
I'm biased as i own a 125 C and wished the cut-off was pre'79...but where does it end?
Maybe the decades should be the cut-off....who knows
Anyway some may find this issue boring but for owners of "B" models....it is a worthy issue.
-
That's John Walmsley in those pics.. '76 Qld Champion.
Thanks J O . I was wondering , having second thoughts about it being GW .I knew it wasnt AG
-
I wonder if this mysterious & probably very old by now Jeff Keen still has the original photo's?
:D :D :D and how would you go about finding him after so long even if he did still exist! :P ;D
Un beleiveable - I just opened my facebook and look whos there !!! Jeff Keen ! He's listed as a possible freind as he is a Freind of a freind . Ajay where are you?
-
I still remember the day I opened that issue of MXA and saw that they had published some of my photos… I was standing in the newsagent in Crows Nest NSW and I just about needed a change of underware…
How was I to know that you don't just send them unsolicited stuff - but you approach them and negotiate prior to the event - I was only 16 and didn't know better. I had forgotten all about that story…
And thanks Geoff, I am really old, thanks for reminding me!!!
Don't ask about Facebook at that is another story altogether…
Thanks for the reminder of my youth guys,
VMX42
-
you're welcome ;D ;)
-
Yeah this has dragged on way too long and is boring as all shit so on a closing note, whilst not finished yet here's basically what my intentions were/are..no rule bending, no trophy hunting, no cheating and so far as I could see, no cause for sniveling! :D in my eyes it's totally era, a little different but still built within the constraints of a tight budget and using parts available 'locally'. When was the last time you saw a Thor or Fox or DG arm for an early RM125 on eBay Australia? I personally don't recall seeing any...ever! ;)
(http://public.bay.livefilestore.com/y1p0-L3KZ8ygBcudPAdk7GiFGev44_gqAvsC-Pw9-yTMpHwAaP9ZFIxyDIlrOlNJ1_G8x7gYjI1GQPs1bdRPy7A9A/RM125.jpg)
don't suppose anyone makes translucient sideplates for RM's??
the brake stay arm is from a 1970 U70 steppie so 100% era legal also and again, just a little different ;)
-
Looking good as usual Doc. Check out Vintage Suzuki for translucient side covers ?
-
looks good doc 8)
like i said earlier i wont be
taking my original thor swingarm
off my rm370 for anyone ;)
-
Doc and Rusty it's funny how no one said a word about the alloy swingarm on my RM250b at the nats but there's always lots of shit goin on here.
-
i wouldnt say anything cause
i know its ok ;)
-
Doc
What footpegs are on that :D
Out of interest & amazment, how long did this rebuild take you?
Noel
-
Hey Doc.
Can you tell me what the major parts are off year model wise? Like shocks, motor , frame , front end , tank , wheels. Can you list them please? I am also assuming that the swing arm is actually off a '78 model as it doesn't have a tab welded on the arm. Or have I still got it wrong? I have got an interest more so now that I am buying Dodgeys' and would like to be able to pick the difference between the A,B and C.
The wheels on your resto's always look so good. There must be hours and hours in them. Do you buff off the anodising off or strip it with a process?
Also do you keep buffing till all the nicks are out of the alloy or are they still there if you look close enough. Bike looks great.
-
Rusty, truth be known, if you have a thor arm you probably shouldn't be riding at all :P ;D
Stew, thanks, will have to save the pennies and get a pair I'd reckon ;)
Noel, the pegs 'I think' are RM80 from 2000 onwards. Got them for 20 including postage from ebay singapore or thailand ages ago. I emailed the seller asking for more and he said there were more on the way but I've never seen them since. I'll go back and have a look but pretty sure they were from the RM80. Had to drill the pin hole and a hole for the return spring but they fit perfectly. Personally I hate the look of the wide/fatty pegs on the older bikes and may even remove them :-\ heard about your recent accident also, hope the leg's on the mend soon mate ;) oh..as for the time taken on this bike..about 3 years ::) it was never on the prioety list so it didn't matter so long as it was eventually done ;)
Brad, the rims aren't as good as the picture makes out. I polish everything using my index finger and autosol. I actually enjoy doing it this way but there are far easier and faster methods obviously.
frame '76 RM125
forks '78 PE250
triples '78 PE250
engine '78 RM125C
pipe '78 RM125C
airbox '78 RM125C (mounts slightly different to A)
front wheel '77 RM125B
rear wheel '77 RM125B
seat ..god only knows..RM something ???
some will say the '78 parts don't belong but ya get that ;D
-
Hey Doc
I asked how long because on the forum it seems like you build them in a week ;)
IMHO wide pegs are the go, but each to his own.
The leg may not be as bad as was thought, I go for an MRI on Thursday to see what the go is.
I'm gunna be home a fair bit so let me know if you want to try ya bike out.
Noel
-
DRZ 125 footpegs are very similar and 1/2 the price from suzuki of RM 80 ones ,last set I got were about $300 kiwi each (so about $1.50 ;D)