OzVMX Forum
Marque Remarks => Suzuki => Topic started by: reviseur on December 29, 2009, 03:12:53 am
-
Hello, i am trying to find out the characteristics of a RH 250 1975.
were these works bikes or just limited supply bikes for fortunated riders?
parts availibility, difficult or not ? which parts are most critical ?
Do other parts RM /TM fit this bike ?
I am considering acquiring one which is for sale here in Belgium.
kind regards and best wishes for 2010
-
limited supply production racer, but rare and expensive, 75 is worth less dollars as forward mount shocks and RM A looks not as desirable. Plus once the A series RMs arrived the game was up.
Parts are rare and pricey. How much are you going to pay.
-
beauty is in the eyes of the beholder Mark..I reckon the '75 is the most attractive RH250 of them all..excepting the RH67 of course ;)
-
the asking price is 4000 euro , currently 5600 USD. Bike is running but is unrestored and needs complete revision. What do you think ?
thks for the answers
-
Cool bike, I would do some homework on parts availability first, are you going to race it or just restore it? There are probably more parts floating around where you live. I dont know what the value of something like that would be over there so it would pay to do the sums and ask around.
-
beauty is in the eyes of the beholder Mark..I reckon the '75 is the most attractive RH250 of them all..excepting the RH67 of course
I agree Doc but is beauty the prerequisite for an RH? The RH75 might be a 'prettier' bike but the RH74 and earlier models are the hot ticket in my mind. For one, the RH75 was way more common than the earlier models, hence their value being roughly half that of the pre '75 models. An RH74 is extremely competitive in pre '75 racing but its '75 model brother is little better than the equivalent RM and behind the 8 ball when compared to much of the competition. The RH75 is still a very desirable bike but it pales in comparison to the earlier models.
Dave Tanner would have an opinion I'll bet. Are you there David?
-
I agree with Firko that the '74 RH is more collectible than the '75 but i've seen a couple of '75 models go for around $15,000 so they are obviously still very desirable.
I have both a '74 and a '75 RH and i prefer the look of the '75.
Nothing is interchangable with a TM but quite a few engine parts from a '76 RM will fit. RH parts are getting very hard to find.
-
the asking price is 4000 euro , currently 5600 USD. Bike is running but is unrestored and needs complete revision. What do you think ?
thks for the answers
I'd have tho't that sounds like a bargain.
75 is my favourite too
-
I bet you would all swoop on a RH 75 for that price if it was on home turf . Because I would ;D
In my eyes a Rh 67 - 74 then a 75 but then again one in ya bag is better than looking for 2 in the bush.
-
the asking price is 4000 euro , currently 5600 USD. Bike is running but is unrestored and needs complete revision. What do you think ?
thks for the answers
Yeah buy it at price, RH75 is quite different from RH74 and earlier....but still desirable. There are probably more parts floating about Australia and NZ for some reason, a disproportionate amount of RH production went to those two countries.
-
Have to agree with firko
-
I agree Firko (about the early models popularity) but excepting for one (unknown) fact that you even stated yourself..the '68-'74 might be the more 'desirable' collectors bike but if it were to be raced then for parts availability and practicality I'd say the '75 would be the one to go for.
-
I would buy it for that. I think parts are hard but not impossible yet. They had an extensive spares kit when sold new. Seems to be a bit of stuff in NZ.
-
I agree Firko (about the early models popularity) but excepting for one (unknown) fact that you even stated yourself..the '68-'74 might be the more 'desirable' collectors bike but if it were to be raced then for parts availability and practicality I'd say the '75 would be the one to go for.
the 75 was more RM A than RH250, totally out classed by the RM A the RH75 was consigned to history. the real RH250 is the 73-74 when it was rare and the fastest bike out there.
-
But no less collectable.
-
I agree Firko (about the early models popularity) but excepting for one (unknown) fact that you even stated yourself..the '68-'74 might be the more 'desirable' collectors bike but if it were to be raced then for parts availability and practicality I'd say the '75 would be the one to go for.
the 75 was more RM A than RH250, totally out classed by the RM A the RH75 was consigned to history. the real RH250 is the 73-74 when it was rare and the fastest bike out there.
The '75 RH was more than competitive in it's class. The RM250A was a '76 model and replaced the '75 RH..they were never intended to race head to head.
The RMA was basically a refined production '75 RH with an up pipe and reed valve.
The '75 is still an RH and very collectible and differs mainly only in rear suspension from the '74.
-
The RM250A was a '76 model and replaced the '75 RH..they were never intended to race head to head
My memory is probably as ratshit ans everything else but I could have sworn that the RM250 A came out in '75 John. A guy in my club raced an RH75 and RM370A at the same time and I can recall seeing a line of RH75 Suzukis alongside RM250As in Hazell and Moores showroom in 1975.
No question that the RH75 was indeed very competitive but in todays vintage racing it falls a bit short in pre '78 when compared to what else id eligible and when compared to the RH74s potential dominance of the pre '75 division. Whatever the go, I have to say that my ride on Tanners RH250 and RN400 mightily impressed me. Cool bikes by a country mile.
Can anyone tell me the weights of the RH74/RN74 and RN75? Bob Neilson, who I got my B&S TM 400 from reckons it weighs 100kg. It is light and felt lighter than Daves RN when we compared them at CD6 so I'd be curious to know.
-
Firko the RM250 and 370A's came out in late '75 (Motocross Action tested them in dec '75 issue) but they were '76 models and the B was a '77 model and so on.
I remember seeing left over '75 RH250's at Mayfairs in '76 sitting beside the new RMA's and they were going cheap to get rid of them.
I'll see if i can find the weight of the RH250 in an old mag article somewhere, i know they are very light.
-
Firko the RM250 and 370A's came out in late '75 (Motocross Action tested them in dec '75 issue) but they were '76 models and the B was a '77 model and so on.
I remember seeing left over '75 RH250's at Mayfairs in '76 sitting beside the new RMA's and they were going cheap to get rid of them.
I'll see if i can find the weight of the RH250 in an old mag article somewhere, i know they are very light.
As mentioned the RH75 was like the RM125S, it was a kind of TM hybrid long travel lash up for a couple of months until the RM As turned up. Like the last Neanderthals, great breed but it had its day. Collectible yes, representing the best of breed, unlike the RH73-74.... nah.
-
Guys, thks for all replies. Can someone post some detailed pictures of the 74 and 75 RH?
How come you these are very very rare in Europe, i have the feeling they are more common in your area.
-
Firko the RM250 and 370A's came out in late '75 (Motocross Action tested them in dec '75 issue) but they were '76 models and the B was a '77 model and so on.
I remember seeing left over '75 RH250's at Mayfairs in '76 sitting beside the new RMA's and they were going cheap to get rid of them.
I'll see if i can find the weight of the RH250 in an old mag article somewhere, i know they are very light.
As mentioned the RH75 was like the RM125S, it was a kind of TM hybrid long travel lash up for a couple of months until the RM As turned up. Like the last Neanderthals, great breed but it had its day. Collectible yes, representing the best of breed, unlike the RH73-74.... nah.
Where do you get the idea it's a TM hybrid? It's exactly the same engine, wheels, forks, tank and seat as a '73/'74 RH but with a different swingarm and rear suspension.
Nothing from a TM fits it.
-
Guys, thks for all replies. Can someone post some detailed pictures of the 74 and 75 RH?
How come you these are very very rare in Europe, i have the feeling they are more common in your area.
I've just taken some fresh picks of mine.. I'll email them to you .
-
Where do you get the idea it's a TM hybrid? It's exactly the same engine, wheels, forks, tank and seat as a '73/'74 RH but with a different swingarm and rear suspension.
Nothing from a TM fits it.
[/quote]
Well apart from the crankcases and the rest of the bottom end of the TM engine. Have RH74 top end on top of my 74 TM250 motor.
-
I think from memory Dave T said the RH74 weighed about 89kg's, YZA (250) 93kg's' CR250M 96kg's. 75 RH wouldn't be more than 1 or 2 kg's more I would think (than the 74). To put it into perspective I think the TM Suzukis and MX Yamahas weighed about 108 kg's. The RH73 was going to be about 75 kg's (same weight as TMBills meat and potatoes) untill they bought in minimum weights thanks to Maico and a few other Euro manufacturer's. The actual RH74 works bike was a couple of kg's lighter than the one they sold to the lucky bastards that got em! 74RH production was about 200?, where 75RH was 650. Dave T and TMBill would know more about it than me, where are you pom?. Hope this helps.
-
Hey MarcFX, if there a tarted up TM, where did the extra 20 odd kilos come from?. I think the only "TM" parts would be the kill switch and tyres, tell em JohnnyO!!!
-
Hey MarcFX, if there a tarted up TM, where did the extra 20 odd kilos come from?. I think the only "TM" parts would be the kill switch and tyres, tell em JohnnyO!!!
Giddy Up!
I don't really know what you're saying marc but apart from the rear suspension and airbox their is very little difference between the '74 RH and '75 RH.
-
When I did the YZ250a v RH74 test for ADB many years ago I recall being shown that there are no interchangable parts whatsoever between the TM and RH. Even simple things like the levers and spokes are different. The RH barrel may fit the TM Marc but that doesn't make the cases the same. They're quite different visually if you have a good look. I spent a couple of hours comparing a TM400 and Tanners RN a few years ago and for the life of me I couldn't find one part that was the shared between both bikes. Prior to that I thought they looked the same, now I can spot an RH/RN at 100 paces. ;D
I got Bob Neilsons message wrong regarding my Boyd and Stellings TM400. He tells me it weighed in at 200lbs (90kg) and that Ray Sullivans ex Dave Tanner/ex Cossie Cheney TM400 (which Bob also built) weighs in at 215 (97kg) which puts both in the RN area weight wise.
-
Giddy Up!
I don't really know what you're saying marc but apart from the rear suspension and airbox their is very little difference between the '74 RH and '75 RH.
[/quote]
I guess I read the RH story as 'were any parts interchangeable' with the TM, not were any the exact same. I agree Firko not much is the same, but if you had a few RH bits lying about top end, air box, forks, they will fit the TM.
Where the 20kgs is ?, the frame and attention to weight on every small part, an RH74 frame weighs nothing compared to TM, rear wheel assembly, brake lever etc etc
(http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg71/marcFX_photo/IMGP0717.jpg)
-
That looks bloody good for a TM Marc! Is that a 125 tank and have you also shortened the seat to get the RH look?
Nice job. :)
-
Hi Johnny, my bike but Mike Feltons job (who has just set up his own VMX business and may produce replica RH frame kits), and I agree he made a superb job. Tank is TM125, seat gap is the same as genuine RH73, there are a few RH bits on it (head, barrel etc), actually off RH75. Rear wheel is RM250 magnesium and that probably gives an idea of where Suzuki saved weight on the RH.
Back to the 20 kg question given that factory guys broke a few I would say the main area of weight saving is the frame, the TM was just a TS sans brackets. RH wheels were massively lighter, titanium bolts, alloy brake lever, lighter casings, alloy tank, it all adds up.
I mean no way was the TM an RH, just some bits can be interchanged, Firko's Cheney or building a lighter frame is the way forward with the TM. But Suzuki knew that, but for a factory that targets a 3 year model run at a production level I would say Suzuki's response was the RM ABC.
-
I must say having a ride on Dave Tanners RN400 at CD was a privalage and a ripper.My late mate Barry who had 5 Rh/Rn's Had his RH motor on the work bench with his 360A motor talk about night and day engineering wise, that also went for the forks.The suzuki was agricultural to the Yamaha engineering, from memory not many parts adapted to the TM.
-
Back to the 20 kg question given that factory guys broke a few I would say the main area of weight saving is the frame, the TM was just a TS sans brackets. RH wheels were massively lighter, titanium bolts, alloy brake lever, lighter casings, alloy tank, it all adds up.
Absolutely. TM Suzukis are built on the heavy side because in those early days motocross frame construction wasn't the science it is today so Suzuki played the safe game and made the bikes as sturdy as possible to avoid their products self destructing after a couple of months. They'd learned from the RH program that the super lightweight, thin walled RH frames only lasted half a season so that wouldn't have been good enough for a production machine.
Not Surprisingly the RH and TM design teams had very little interaction and according to DeCoster there was a lot of factory rivalry. The TM design team considered the RH boys elitest and the RH guys considered the TM team below them.
The only time that both worked together was when management insisted that the TM and RH have a passable resemblence to each other for marketing purposes.
The weight thing is the key to it all. My B&S frame is made from extremely thin walled 4130 Chro-Mo tubing, alloy swingarm, has a magnesium RL rear hub (supposedly the same as an RH), did have a sandcast OW Yamaha front hub but I sold it to an OW restorer and it now has a standard YZ250A wheel, lightweight Yamaha YZ250A forks,hollow chro-mo engine mount bolts and axles, plastic tank and the side panels are even held on by zip ties! The Cheney was also very similar but the Cheney frame is noticably heavier than the B&S. As a side point, the RH frame is almost identical to the Cheney after Olle Pederson had taken the Cheney Suzuki that Tom Ledbitter had raced back to Japan for evaluation (ie, copying).
(The B&S at CD6, with the adjustable steering head on full dirt track adjustment, hence the odd stance )
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-8/1062154/cd6%20044.jpg)
-
.The suzuki was agricultural to the Yamaha engineering.
Yep the Suzuki has a much more, just enough to survive the season feel about it. Suzuki is big on stressing cost over zero defects, even today. The Yamahas are much more refined.
I would imagine the RH group at Suzuki and the TM group probably seriously went to different universities, Japanese business centers around which university you graduated from. So whole teams will form around fellow graduates.
-
Hi Johnny, my bike but Mike Feltons job (who has just set up his own VMX business and may produce replica RH frame kits), and I agree he made a superb job. Tank is TM125, seat gap is the same as genuine RH73, there are a few RH bits on it (head, barrel etc), actually off RH75. Rear wheel is RM250 magnesium and that probably gives an idea of where Suzuki saved weight on the RH.
Back to the 20 kg question given that factory guys broke a few I would say the main area of weight saving is the frame, the TM was just a TS sans brackets. RH wheels were massively lighter, titanium bolts, alloy brake lever, lighter casings, alloy tank, it all adds up.
I mean no way was the TM an RH, just some bits can be interchanged, Firko's Cheney or building a lighter frame is the way forward with the TM. But Suzuki knew that, but for a factory that targets a 3 year model run at a production level I would say Suzuki's response was the RM ABC.
Marc your TM GP is a nice looking bike :) but i think you will find the TM cases took a bit of machining to accept the RH cylinder ;) Have you ridden it yet , would be keen to know if it steers better than a standard TM :)
-
Oldfart said his rh barrel would not fit his tm250 without a fair bit of modification.
-
Marcs TM GP is probably the nicest (modified TM 250 ) iv'e seen , its a credit to its builder and i would happily have it in my shed :) but its still a TM 250.
You can dress Susan Boyle in a gym slip but it aint gonna make her Olga Corbett ;)
I think as a pre 75 race bike your 74 KX 250 would run rings round any TM Mark ;)
RH models both 74 and 75 are the holy grail for any twin shock Suzuki phile :) Unless your names Mr good and you own Joels RH72 8)
As has been said the 74 is a great pre 75 race bike and obviously rarer as less were made, personally i love the look of both the 74 and the 75 and would love to have either in the shed :)
Revisuer at the price the blokes asking for the 75 grab it with both hands , if its not for you sell it on ;)
-
You can dress Susan Boyle in a gym slip but it aint gonna make her Olga Corbett ;)
RH models both 74 and 75 are the holy grail for any twin shock Suzuki phile :)
hey Bill, Susan Boyle in gym slip, you sick bastard ;D ;D
Yeah seriously if I had a lazy 15-20K then I would buy an RH, but alas my bonus will be a little lighter this year. The RH/RN is one of the ultimate in VMX collectibles, buy it you will never loose money.
And yes I think the KX250 will put it to most things in pre 74 racing.
-
Brad, it's still in progress( Gunna Job ) Front stud pattern on TM same as RH but requires a bit of ali added to rear of studs ( no big deal )
Rear studs need to be removed holes filled and redone around approx 6mm further apart.
This year I'm buying a milling machine which should see further progress ;)
-
Hey Marc we should let Mike loose on our KXs ;D I think with a bit of thought they could be a poor mans RH :)
-
Hey Marc we should let Mike loose on our KXs ;D I think with a bit of thought they could be a poor mans RH :)
hey Bill, I have Mike busy most of the time, but you are right I think the KX could be as good as an RH, this comment was also made in VMX magazine, my 250 is basically ready to assemble be interesting to see what it can do.
-
I think youre pretty right about the KX. Even rabid Suzukiphile and RH owner David Tanner prefers his KX over his RH. As good as the RH was, there were a lot of 250s in 1974 that could come close or even top it. Maico, MX Yamaha and TM Suzuki are probably the only '74 250s that aren't really capable in stock trim. My personal pick, the OSSA Phantom was everything a works bike wanted to be in '74. That year was the last bastion of the European domination of motocross and from 1975 on the MX world was totally into 'turning Japanese'.
-
Maico, MX Yamaha and TM Suzuki are probably the only '74 250s that aren't really capable in stock trim.
I mean thats the joy of building the non stock ones Firko, with 20/20 hindsight you can address a lot of weak points. I picked up my MX250 for $600, knew I could get the motor to move from youthful porting experiments on ITs, add a few after market bits and some fork trickery and it may be quite rapid.
the YZ gas tank came about as it is the same stunt as fitting TM125 ones to 250s. Makes the bike feel much smaller/
(http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg71/marcFX_photo/P2210013.jpg)
-
it may be quite rapid.
did anyone see the first consolation race at the 09 Conondale Nationals?
where a {wait for it} 1973 Yamaha MX250 held off a 81 Maygo 490 for nearly the whole race...
twas one of my favourite moments as a spectator at the Nats
;D
Apparently they're quite rapid out of the box :)
-
Apparently they're quite rapid out of the box :)
Yeah but no harm in doing some house keeping with some period performance parts out back and a little monkey magic to the forks. I have done quite a bit with these motors before, other motor mods include porting by me, Webco head, bigger carb, YZ ignition. Should really haul oats. Plus its cheapo pre 74 bike with an unlimited parts supply, bargain.
-
Marc what forks are on that TM of yours ? they look like what I have. Have you got a close up pic of the brake stay ? and are the fork tubes machined down at the top? jimson
-
Shoehorn an RM400 engine into a TM125 and you start to get the idea of what the RN370/400/420/440 feels like. Pretty sure the RN only weighs 89kgs so the RH250 would be less again ;)
late edit..found this
(http://public.bay.livefilestore.com/y1p6VgODdLkVJdxWfMiOewMZXevcXENfMcZryqtcj3ilGWZ9ZihLrYiGxdAgPvMNh9ID7LpxAk_KOD5J1XRgk5GWw/1971%20Suzuki%201.jpg)
-
Hi, I'm a vintage mx enthusiast looking for a production Suzuki RH250 if perhaps somebody has heard of one for sale. Seen photo's of a few of the web and compared it to my 75' TM250. No comparison. I live near Vancouver BC Canada.
Thanks, Mark
-
Hi Guys
the bits that are interchangeable without mods are the twist grip and foot pegs
You can graft a head and barrel on a TM250 only (if you do it right) with considerable modification to the left transfer on the crank case.
If there is going to be a replica frame made it will need to be a good one.
The 74 was not an available to everyone bike and was issued to secected race teams who paid a truck load of money to own them, the one I own was ex team Phil Thew Suzuki Randy Jone's bike the RN400 was Geoff Worrels Suzuki Australia bike but the 75 RH was a pre production RM250 in a lot of ways with an RH engine # rh250000400 and on and the sand cast bits left over from the 74 bike. Interestingly if you get a really early RM250 / 370 you may get it with a sand cast rear backing plate with RH part numbers on it, this was Suzuki using up the bits as well.
The RH was way ahead of the TM and I could go on forever on the subject but make this last point, the clutch on my RN400 is a sand cast unit and is the same bit that was on the real works 370 so developed around say 70/71 the closest I have found to it is the one out of the RM400N/T which is a pressure cast bit almost identical that Im sure it would work. Thats how different and how long it took Suzuki to deliver this stuff to the punters. By comparision to the TM400 clutch its like looking at a Belarus tractor next to a new John Deer.