OzVMX Forum
Marketplace => eBay Finds => Topic started by: motomaniac on March 21, 2013, 11:13:17 am
-
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1978-Suzuki-RM125-Aluminum-Swingarm-AHRMA-Vintage-MX-/221201614068?hash=item3380a4c4f4&item=221201614068&pt=Motorcycles_Parts_Accessories&vxp=mtr
-
The early 78's used up the stock of '77 optional arms. That arm has the mount for the short brake stay arm. The later 78's did not have that mount, because 78's have a floating rear brake.
-
The early 78's used up the stock of '77 optional arms. That arm has the mount for the short brake stay arm. The later 78's did not have that mount, because 78's have a floating rear brake.
Exactly..
-
Yep I bought one from states without brake tag, got an alloy one welded on.
-
The early 78's used up the stock of '77 optional arms. That arm has the mount for the short brake stay arm. The later 78's did not have that mount, because 78's have a floating rear brake.
Then its a 77 alloy arm legal for pre 78.
-
Talk to someone about it before you buy it as in Oz it is still not established that the RM125B optional arm is legal as no one ever saw one in use. Which is most likely why many early RM125C bikes came with the rear brake lug included.
In fact it has been understood by many that it is not legal at Oz national level. You can not use the parts book as evidence. Certainly welding a lug on to an RM125C arm would make the part not legal in OZ. Not interested in a debate as it has been done to death several times. Just thought I would mention it in case someone was going to fork out money for it.
Ted will now come in at this point I assume ;D
-
Talk to someone about it before you buy it as in Oz it is still not established that the RM125B optional arm is legal as no one ever saw one in use.
I saw one in use in '77... Does that count??
-
Talk to someone about it before you buy it as in Oz it is still not established that the RM125B optional arm is legal as no one ever saw one in use.
I saw one in use in '77... Does that count??
The only one I ever saw back then was Gunter on what appeared to be a RM125B with a C arm, rear hub and full floater rear brake late in '77. Which given his Suzuki status could have been pre-production parts I gues.
I am sure Ted would be interested in any evidence that can be used to support the 'B' option alloy swingarm. Doesn't make any difference to me either way.
-
Unfortunately i don't have any pics to back it up but my mate bought one from Phil Thew Suzuki for his B in '77. Noel Harker was the salesman there and he's into the VMX scene also and can back it up but again we don't have anything on paper, just the word of a couple of hard core mxers who were there in the 70's.. ;)
-
Talk to someone about it before you buy it as in Oz it is still not established that the RM125B optional arm is legal as no one ever saw one in use.
I saw one in use in '77... Does that count??
The only one I ever saw back then was Gunter on what appeared to be a RM125B with a C arm, rear hub and full floater rear brake late in '77. Which given his Suzuki status could have been pre-production parts I gues.
I am sure Ted would be interested in any evidence that can be used to support the 'B' option alloy swingarm. Doesn't make any difference to me either way.
I got an idea ,might be a bit far fetched , but how about just look at it ? Then decide well does it look like someone made it in their backyard or is it a modern Novation arm like lots of others are using or does it look like a genuine Suzuki part ?
Just fantisizing folks ! but you never know
-
It not only looks like a genuine Suzuki part, it has a Suzuki part # 61100-41870-019 REAR SWINGING ARM SET. November 1976
If it is deemed illegal surely these optional part numbers published November 1976 are also illegal :
09825-00002 LEVER, tire
09821-00004 INFLATOR, air
09826-00001. TOOL, tube repairing
99000-33010 GASKET, liquid
99000-32040. CEMENT, thread
99000-25030. GREASE, super
99000-10105-019. PAINT. ( BLACK )
99000-10105-163. PAINT ( PHLOLINA. YELLOW )
11400-41811. GASKET SET
11400-41850. GASKET SET
11400-41891. GASKET SET
After typing this out I thought why not order these optional parts from Suzuki and if any or all of them are available or were available Pre 78 and seeing as they are out of the same parts catalogue as the alloy arm then surely the arm was available for sale as well. I have been informed by MA that a eligible part only has to be available for purchase, not necessarily purchased.
-
It not only looks like a genuine Suzuki part, it has a Suzuki part # 61100-41870-019 REAR SWINGING ARM SET. November 1976
If it is deemed illegal surely these optional part numbers published November 1976 are also illegal :
09825-00002 LEVER, tire
09821-00004 INFLATOR, air
09826-00001. TOOL, tube repairing
99000-33010 GASKET, liquid
99000-32040. CEMENT, thread
99000-25030. GREASE, super
99000-10105-019. PAINT. ( BLACK )
99000-10105-163. PAINT ( PHLOLINA. YELLOW )
11400-41811. GASKET SET
11400-41850. GASKET SET
11400-41891. GASKET SET
After typing this out I thought why not order these optional parts from Suzuki and if any or all of them are available or were available Pre 78 and seeing as they are out of the same parts catalogue as the alloy arm then surely the arm was available for sale as well. I have been informed by MA that a eligible part only has to be available for purchase, not necessarily purchased.
yes Ted the suzuki tyre levers are illegal if you show up with them at a meeting you will be escorted off the site ::) and don't even think of repairing a flat tyre with the tube repair tool FFS what are you thinking ;D
As far as the swingarm goes JohhnyO said they he someone that bought one in '77. Now if you got a statutory declaration from that person and also the dealer who is still around signed a Stat Dec confirming that purchase it may just be enough?
-
Talk to someone about it before you buy it as in Oz it is still not established that the RM125B optional arm is legal as no one ever saw one in use.
I saw one in use in '77... Does that count??
The only one I ever saw back then was Gunter on what appeared to be a RM125B with a C arm, rear hub and full floater rear brake late in '77. Which given his Suzuki status could have been pre-production parts I gues.
I am sure Ted would be interested in any evidence that can be used to support the 'B' option alloy swingarm. Doesn't make any difference to me either way.
I got an idea ,might be a bit far fetched , but how about just look at it ? Then decide well does it look like someone made it in their backyard or is it a modern Novation arm like lots of others are using or does it look like a genuine Suzuki part ?
Just fantisizing folks ! but you never know
Stop making sense!
-
It not only looks like a genuine Suzuki part, it has a Suzuki part # 61100-41870-019 REAR SWINGING ARM SET. November 1976
If it is deemed illegal surely these optional part numbers published November 1976 are also illegal :
09825-00002 LEVER, tire
09821-00004 INFLATOR, air
09826-00001. TOOL, tube repairing
99000-33010 GASKET, liquid
99000-32040. CEMENT, thread
99000-25030. GREASE, super
99000-10105-019. PAINT. ( BLACK )
99000-10105-163. PAINT ( PHLOLINA. YELLOW )
11400-41811. GASKET SET
11400-41850. GASKET SET
11400-41891. GASKET SET
After typing this out I thought why not order these optional parts from Suzuki and if any or all of them are available or were available Pre 78 and seeing as they are out of the same parts catalogue as the alloy arm then surely the arm was available for sale as well. I have been informed by MA that a eligible part only has to be available for purchase, not necessarily purchased.
yes Ted the suzuki tyre levers are illegal if you show up with them at a meeting you will be escorted off the site ::) and don't even think of repairing a flat tyre with the tube repair tool FFS what are you thinking ;D
As far as the swingarm goes JohhnyO said they he someone that bought one in '77. Now if you got a statutory declaration from that person and also the dealer who is still around signed a Stat Dec confirming that purchase it may just be enough?
You are not listening, Now pay attention.....For a part to be legal it only has to " BE AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE" so JohnnyO's mates shopper docket is not required. He'll, they even let Montessas in and who bought them? ;D
-
Ted are you sure you are not a Minister in the Gillard Government ::) you handle thing in such an organised and orderly fashion ;). Firstly you have to prove that it was available to buy and that is the whole issue with this swingarm thing ::).
1) The fact that early RM125Cs had what appears to be optional RM125B arms proves they didn't sell them otherwise they wouldn't have them. It does not however prove that they were actually available to the general public to buy
2) It is also possible that RM125Cs were to have non-floating rear brakes until production had already started who is to know.
3) Someone saying they think they bought one or someone knows someone that could have had one just doesn't cut it.
-
1) The fact that early RM125Cs had what appears to be optional RM125B arms proves they didn't sell them otherwise they wouldn't have them. It does not however prove that they were actually available to the general public to buy
2) It is also possible that RM125Cs were to have non-floating rear brakes until production had already started who is to know.
3) Someone saying they think they bought one or someone knows someone that could have had one just doesn't cut it.
That's just the biggest load of crap i've ever heard! I was racing an RM125b in '77, that's how i KNOW they were available and saw them and the parts book backs it up but that's not good enough.. people who weren't around in the day are telling us it's a myth and there's no proof. WTF!!??
You don't know either way if they were available or not, you're just clutching at straws and guessing that they weren't!!
-
1) The fact that early RM125Cs had what appears to be optional RM125B arms proves they didn't sell them otherwise they wouldn't have them. It does not however prove that they were actually available to the general public to buy
2) It is also possible that RM125Cs were to have non-floating rear brakes until production had already started who is to know.
3) Someone saying they think they bought one or someone knows someone that could have had one just doesn't cut it.
That's just the biggest load of crap i've ever heard! I was racing an RM125b in '77, that's how i KNOW they were available and saw them and the parts book backs it up but that's not good enough.. people who weren't around in the day are telling us it's a myth and there's no proof. WTF!!??
You don't know either way if they were available or not, you're just clutching at straws and guessing that they weren't!!
JohnnyO as a matter of fact I think they should be legal but at present there is no proof they were generally available in 1977. Certainly they seem to have been available in '78 but my understanding is they have been refused at National level in the past. I really don't give a rats either way but just being in the parts book is specifically noted as not acceptable in the MOMS. I also raced an RM125B in 1977.
I suggested the Stat Dec as maybe a way to establish their availability. Looking at the part, someone said, I saw one, they are in the parts book is all very well but it is not proof and the burden of proof is with the entrant.
Don't jump on me just because I point out what is in the rule book.
-
Now thet we've cleared up that you don't have to purchase a part to make it legal how do you explain these comments you made
22/12/2012. " I saw more than one bike fitted with the optional B arm in 77 "
21/3/2013. " No one ever saw one of these in 77 "
21/3/2013. " The only one I ever saw was the one fitted to Gunter's bike etc "
-
They exist today , people own them , people sell them.How is this possible if they were never available to the public?
They are not he same as a 79/80 not the same as a 75 or earlier , they are 77/78 , they bolt straight on , the 78 has a full floating brake for which there are alloy swingarms without a brake stay tab. The 77 doesnt have a fully floating brake .I wonder where the fork they bolted the brake stay? Could it be to the tab on the forking swingarm?
Now lets not jump to any irrational conclusions now , lets look for some real proof or lets make another 27 page thread about all the reasons why it might not be so. ::)
-
If one could get, say a 78 Montessa to be eligible for Pre 78 racing using it is a carry over model with no changes then why couldn't a 76 swingarm that you claim was only ever used on 78 models be argued that it is unchanged since 76 and be legal for Pre 78
-
Someone actually followed the rules and process to have the '78 VB Montesa bikes included wonder who that was ::).
I give up Ted. I was going to type further but what is the point read the rule book. See you at Glenbawn. Get your entry in ;D
-
I suggested the Stat Dec as maybe a way to establish there availability. Looking at the part, someone said, I saw one, they are in the parts book is all very well but it is not proof and the burden of proof is with the entrant.
My Kenny Roberts Manufacturing yz400 swingarm is not in any parts book and was never advertised so I guess my bike is not destined to be seen at a National event.
-
They exist today , people own them , people sell them.How is this possible if they were never available to the public?
They are not he same as a 79/80 not the same as a 75 or earlier , they are 77/78 , they bolt straight on , the 78 has a full floating brake for which there are alloy swingarms without a brake stay tab. The 77 doesnt have a fully floating brake .I wonder where the fork they bolted the brake stay? Could it be to the tab on the forking swingarm?
Now lets not jump to any irrational conclusions now , lets look for some real proof or lets make another 27 page thread about all the reasons why it might not be so. ::)
Mate... don't ruin a potential time waster with the truth. Wtf are the nay sayers going to do now?
-
JohnnyO as a matter of fact I think they should be legal but at present there is no proof they were generally available in 1977.
You certainly don't come across as someone that thinks they should be legal.. quite the opposite actually.
-
FWIW, What a complete load of flucking shite this all is. This type of superficial banter that is viewed here by outsiders considering a ride in any vmx organisation is exactly what steers them clear of doing so, who really gives a shite...? Probably just the bloke riding the bike with a steel swing arm when he gets beat by the bloke with alloy one, will he consider that it might be a lack of ability or possibly his bike not being set up quite as well overall as the other?? I can understand that rules are rules despite any individual agreeing with their validity or not, which at a national level is fine (kinda) but at a club level it matters not a single poofteenth!!! This seems to be the height of importance to so many, even though the bike with steel swing arm may well be 10-15-20cc over powered for its class and no one would ever ever know!!!! No ones gonna check that now are they??
Ride ya bikes, have fun, enjoy your day out...encourage others to do the same and to bring more potential club members and riders along with them. In Victoria i can be pretty sure that if you rode a pre 78 RM125 with an alloy swing arm at a CSC or VIPER meet no one would bat an eyelid, they may however express their opinion but highly I doubt it would have you watching from the car park for the day!! Its about getting more blokes to the track not coming up with more bs, strict rule book adhering ways to put people off.
You may disagree with me and thats your right, as too it is mine to express this opinion. ;) :)
Cheers, Brendan
-
Glad to see the RM125B is one of the most discussed bikes here (swingarm and forks). ;D
The optional RM125B aluminum swingarm is legal here in U.S. VMX, but we had debates about it for a year before it was given the seal of approval. It is not a very good aluminum swingarm (more bling really). It is heavy and there are a lot better legal options. I love the year cutoff you guys use for your rules, but I don't think the world would end if someone ran the arm in OZ and I'm one of those tight asses about rules.
Here were my three arguments I used for making the arm legal here:
1. Built by the factory for the B model
2. Available to the public from your local Suzuki dealer
3. No advantage over legal aftermarket swingarms
Seems like the mountain (#2) to get over for making this arm legal is a tough one, unless you can find a magazine article testing one or an advertisement about one, prior to Feb 1978 issues (magazines were published a month ahead, as they are now).
-
on Gumtree in perth
http://www.gumtree.com.au/s-ad/clarkson/motorcycles/suzuki-rm-125-b-c-1977/1016446819
-
Here were my three arguments I used for making the arm legal here:
1. Built by the factory for the B model
2. Available to the public from your local Suzuki dealer
3. No advantage over legal aftermarket swingarms
Seems like the mountain (#2) to get over for making this arm legal is a tough one, unless you can find a magazine article testing one or an advertisement about one, prior to Feb 1978 issues (magazines were published a month ahead, as they are now).
That is what I have been suggesting if someone who actually bought one during 1977 and a dealer or sales person who sold them furing 1977 where to sign Statutory Declarations stating those facts I feel that should be sufficient along with the parts books and part numbers. I would have thought that would be proof. Well it would be acceptable in most sports. Particularly as the part concerned gives no real performance advantage compared to other accepted after market arms.
By the way Rookie#1 the NSW club would also welcome a rider with an RM125B with the alloy arm. This discussion is purely at National level. Ted's bike will be on the grid in a few weeks and naturally we will be taking the piss as he will ;D
-
Well that makes a little bit more sense Greg, good to hear common sense prevails where it rightly should. I guess this is more just an important issue at a national level. Aside from that sounds like just a lot of shit slinging between mate/racers, sling away!! :D ;D
-
how about all you suzuki blokes fit said aluminium swingarm to your bikes so i can put a 78 alloy arm on my yamaha,im sure the 2013 technology piggyback shocks people are using make more difference than what the swingarm does anyway and nobody's even mentioned that,what if i paint my alloy swingarm black,that might work.
-
;D ;D ;D
Steel swing arm for me. RM125Bs had remote res shocks standard ;)
Get a shock V/V job for your YZ-D makes them the same as much later jobbies :)
See what you have started TED ::) ;D
-
Here were my three arguments I used for making the arm legal here:
1. Built by the factory for the B model
2. Available to the public from your local Suzuki dealer
3. No advantage over legal aftermarket swingarms
Seems like the mountain (#2) to get over for making this arm legal is a tough one, unless you can find a magazine article testing one or an advertisement about one, prior to Feb 1978 issues (magazines were published a month ahead, as they are now).
That is what I have been suggesting if someone who actually bought one during 1977 and a dealer or sales person who sold them furing 1977 where to sign Statutory Declarations stating those facts I feel that should be sufficient along with the parts books and part numbers. I would have thought th at would be proof. Well it would be acceptable in most sports. Particularly as the part concerned gives no real performance advantage compared to other accepted after market arms.
By the way Rookie#1 the NSW club would also welcome a rider with an RM125B with the alloy arm. This discussion is purely at National level. Ted's bike will be on the grid in a few weeks and naturally we will be taking the piss as he will ;D
Now that makes sense. OK anybody know of anyone that could possibly get a Stat. Dec. together
-
how about all you suzuki blokes fit said aluminium swingarm to your bikes so i can put a 78 alloy arm on my yamaha,im sure the 2013 technology piggyback shocks people are using make more difference than what the swingarm does anyway and nobody's even mentioned that,what if i paint my alloy swingarm black,that might work.
That's where this all falls into a heap with fudging of rules. He can put a 78 part on his suzuki, why can't i put a 78 arm on my yz?
Next bloke wants to put a 78 front end on his because old mate has a 78 arm on his yz. Where does it end? In dutch twin shock of course. Forest for the trees guys. I am not talking about this particular swingarm debate either. If JohnnyO says they were available, that's good enough for me. The next question will be, how many 78 swingarms will be cut and shut and called optional 77 arms then?
-
The next question will be, how many 78 swingarms will be cut and shut and called optional 77 arms then?
Who gives a shit? Its alot closer to original than fatbars or a modern "replica" arm made last year that never existed anyway.
-
The next question will be, how many 78 swingarms will be cut and shut and called optional 77 arms then?
Who gives a shit? Its alot closer to original than fatbars or a modern "replica" arm made last year that never existed anyway.
Me. Same as the replica arm that isn't a replica or fat bars.
-
Here were my three arguments I used for making the arm legal here:
1. Built by the factory for the B model
2. Available to the public from your local Suzuki dealer
3. No advantage over legal aftermarket swingarms
Seems like the mountain (#2) to get over for making this arm legal is a tough one, unless you can find a magazine article testing one or an advertisement about one, prior to Feb 1978 issues (magazines were published a month ahead, as they are now).
That is what I have been suggesting if someone who actually bought one during 1977 and a dealer or sales person who sold them furing 1977 where to sign Statutory Declarations stating those facts I feel that should be sufficient along with the parts books and part numbers. I would have thought th at would be proof. Well it would be acceptable in most sports. Particularly as the part concerned gives no real performance advantage compared to other accepted after market arms.
By the way Rookie#1 the NSW club would also welcome a rider with an RM125B with the alloy arm. This discussion is purely at National level. Ted's bike will be on the grid in a few weeks and naturally we will be taking the piss as he will ;D
Now that makes sense. OK anybody know of anyone that could possibly get a Stat. Dec. together
-
The next question will be, how many 78 swingarms will be cut and shut and called optional 77 arms then?
Who gives a shit? Its alot closer to original than fatbars or a modern "replica" arm made last year that never existed anyway.
Me. Same as the replica arm that isn't a replica or fat bars.
Are you joking? You had fatbars on a pre75 CZ and run a swingarm that is meant for a long travel Maico with 17.5" fox shoxs on your pre 75 Maico . (I can feel another abusive PM coming on ) ::)
-
how about all you suzuki blokes fit said aluminium swingarm to your bikes so i can put a 78 alloy arm on my yamaha,im sure the 2013 technology piggyback shocks people are using make more difference than what the swingarm does anyway and nobody's even mentioned that,what if i paint my alloy swingarm black,that might work.
That's where this all falls into a heap with fudging of rules. He can put a 78 part on his suzuki, why can't i put a 78 arm on my yz?
Next bloke wants to put a 78 front end on his because old mate has a 78 arm on his yz. Where does it end? In dutch twin shock of course. Forest for the trees guys. I am not talking about this particular swingarm debate either. If JohnnyO says they were available, that's good enough for me. The next question will be, how many 78 swingarms will be cut and shut and called optional 77 arms then?
I see your point Brad and would agree with you if this was a 78 part, It is a part manufactured in 1976. Whether it was sold, bought, available or forking stolen the fact remains that it is still a part manufactured in 1976 . Not 77, not 78 ,79,80 etc. the only thing stopping this part being legal on this discussion site ( and by the way MA have stated to me they know nothing of its illegality ) is a Statutory Declaration declaring they existed, not bought, not sold, just existed.
-
Alan Craig should be the guy with the expertise and memory,
-
Could you please forward me any contact information you may have
Cheers
-
I will visit him on Wednesday and see what he remembers
Besides being the SUZUKI dealer at Boolaroo
Alan purchased Hazell & Moore in Hunter St in 1977
-
Unfortunately Phil Thew is no longer with us so we can't ask him.
-
Thanks SON, much appreciated
-
Are you joking? You had fatbars on a pre75 CZ and run a swingarm that is meant for a long travel Maico with 17.5" fox shoxs on your pre 75 Maico . (I can feel another abusive PM coming on )
That time of the month again is it girlfriend?
So you're the only one with an opinion that matters? So you're the fashion police too?
I'm proud of my bikes and the way they look. Not to mention that they are legal. Never seen any of yours? Maybe I have but they probably don't stand out.Probably as bland as their owner.
Abusive? Well you keep on referring me to being a cheat. I said then and I'll say it again. I take great offence to that and am taking it very personally. When we meet again, I guarantee you it will be on. You've got a big cyber mouth and it will be reality shut. There, no need for a pm.
-
If JohnnyO says they were available, that's good enough for me. The next question will be, how many 78 swingarms will be cut and shut and called optional 77 arms then?
I've followed this thread and I can see a lot of passion involved as this issue keeps getting kicked around. And I don't want to buy into this arguement at all, in any way, BUT as a bystander, without any vested interest in the topic at all, what Brad has mentioned above is the bit that gets me. How can a 78 arm be modified or retro fitted with a brake stay arm that wasn't originally there (as has already been mentioned in this thread a couple of pages back if I read it correctly) and be legal? Surely that's not in keeping with the spirit of the rules and the competition?
-
If JohnnyO says they were available, that's good enough for me. The next question will be, how many 78 swingarms will be cut and shut and called optional 77 arms then?
I've followed this thread and I can see a lot of passion involved as this issue keeps getting kicked around. And I don't want to buy into this arguement at all, in any way, BUT as a bystander, without any vested interest in the topic at all, what Brad has mentioned above is the bit that gets me. How can a 78 arm be modified or retro fitted with a brake stay arm that wasn't originally there (as has already been mentioned in this thread a couple of pages back if I read it correctly) and be legal? Surely that's not in keeping with the spirit of the rules and the competition?
Thats not what people want Simo ( not saying it wont happen) what people want is the right to use the 1977 ( available in 1976 ) optional arm .
The 1978 RM 125C arm does not have the brake stay fitted and also runs needle rollers and sleeves rather than the fibre bushes of the optional RM 125B arm . The fibre bushes from the B arm wont fit into the C arm as the bearing OD is slightly bigger .
You will always get some prick modyifing a C arm i suppose but thats life , if somone feels that anothers arm is a modified C arm put up the money and have it checked ;)
-
If JohnnyO says they were available, that's good enough for me. The next question will be, how many 78 swingarms will be cut and shut and called optional 77 arms then?
This is all I said. Not against it. Just the simple fact that when its passed, how many turkeys will get a 78 arm and modify it to look like one. Not the end of the world statement nor is it such a huge deal if they do. But I for one do not think its the right thing to do.
-
i have two of the 125 alloy arms with the brake lug on them one i got in a parts lot that i bought and one came on a early model c that i bought ,the owner of that bike had it from new its frame number is one of the first 30 from the list of frame numbers for the c
-
i have two of the 125 alloy arms with the brake lug on them one i got in a parts lot that i bought and one came on a early model c that i bought ,the owner of that bike had it from new its frame number is one of the first 30 from the list of frame numbers for the c
The fact that they were on the very early C models means they were built and available prior to December 1977. RM125C's were for sale in the Fall of 1977. I guess you would still need to prove that one was used or at least installed on an RM125B prior to the end of 1977. Because they used up the supply on the RM12C's means either they didn't sell very well or they didn't have enough C arms ready to start the early production.
I got my RM125B in the Summer of 1977 and to be truthful I never knew this arm existed until I was browsing through the Aplha-Sports on line catalog 5 or 6 years ago. I was too horny for a Fox/Thor or DG swingarm to think about anything else.
I've been on both sides of this fence. I was one of the guys that voted for or against rules changes and I've requested rules changes (some passed and some didn't). Take it as a challenge to prove you are right and then you can run the arm at your National level without worry if someone might protest you.
;D
-
Looking at old pics I've downloaded over the years I came across these two of a 1977 RM125B that looks to have the arm installed. At first I thought the garage pic showed the swingarm with dried mud covering it, but look at the pic of the bike on his trailer. Not enough proof, but if you could gather more photos, receipts and signed testimonials perhaps someone could get the powers-that-be to accept the arm as pre-78 legal.
I'm going to look at 78 RM125 magazine tests that may mention the C model comes stock with the optional B swingarm. ;D
(http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g438/Tahtitian_Red/rm125_garage_zps3b272a6f.jpg)
(http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g438/Tahtitian_Red/rm125_trailer_zpsa110b4e6.jpg)
-
If JohnnyO says they were available, that's good enough for me. The next question will be, how many 78 swingarms will be cut and shut and called optional 77 arms then?
I've followed this thread and I can see a lot of passion involved as this issue keeps getting kicked around. And I don't want to buy into this arguement at all, in any way, BUT as a bystander, without any vested interest in the topic at all, what Brad has mentioned above is the bit that gets me. How can a 78 arm be modified or retro fitted with a brake stay arm that wasn't originally there (as has already been mentioned in this thread a couple of pages back if I read it correctly) and be legal? Surely that's not in keeping with the spirit of the rules and the competition?
Thats not what people want Simo ( not saying it wont happen) what people want is the right to use the 1977 ( available in 1976 ) optional arm .
The 1978 RM 125C arm does not have the brake stay fitted and also runs needle rollers and sleeves rather than the fibre bushes of the optional RM 125B arm . The fibre bushes from the B arm wont fit into the C arm as the bearing OD is slightly bigger .
You will always get some prick modyifing a C arm i suppose but thats life , if somone feels that anothers arm is a modified C arm put up the money and have it checked ;)
That's what I was saying Bill. I don't care if the optional alloy swing arm is used because if it was available in 1977 then great, go ahead and use one if you have one. What I wouldn't like to see is people retro-fitting a brake stay to a 78 C Model swing arm to make it look like it's the optional B one. I feel that is not in keeping with the spirit of the rules and the competition.
-
Simo, as Bill has stated B and C arms are different
-
And cannot be made to look like a b one? That's what I am saying because that would be able to be done knowing that there are some clever people out there.
Still you must understand and as much as I write it here I DONT REALLY CARE THAT MUCH. I'm stating what I would think is obvious yet you guys seem to think its unlikely because the two arms differ a little. Reality is some will just chuck one on and others will go to the trouble of making it look like the optional arm.
Then it will be one of those, of the 20 optional arms sold back in the day only 100 have survived.....
-
Brad your right but it doesn't stop at RM B and C arms
I could very easily ( and im a shit fabricator ) modify an RM C frame into an RM B frame
There is absolutley no difference between a 74 75 76 KX 125 frame yet 75 and 76 are not flow ons go figure
So to stop people using the genuine optional arm just in case someone modifys a C arm is ludicrous .
I have a genuine optional alloy arm for a 250B complete with brake lug ex factory :)
-
So to stop people using the genuine optional arm just in case someone modifys a C arm is ludicrous .
said me NEVER.
-
So to stop people using the genuine optional arm just in case someone modifys a C arm is ludicrous .
said me NEVER.
You still got time to get ticket for this weekend :) i will put the optional arm in the 370 for you ;D Its not gonna be the same without you ,Joan and Stewy :'(
-
So to stop people using the genuine optional arm just in case someone modifys a C arm is ludicrous .
said me NEVER.
No, not said by Brad, rather said by me because of this post back on page one:
Yep I bought one from states without brake tag, got an alloy one welded on.
I'm not even sure Don was serious with this post but it highlights the potential problem.
But like Brad, I don't care what people do. I don't even have a bike in this class, I was just commenting on what I saw as a potential issue if/when the alloy arms are accepted in pre 78. All of a sudden there might be 100 of them when only 20 really existed (to use Brad's numbers ;D) .. sort of like XY GTHO's ... at one stage it was reported there were more registered than were made ::)
-
I have an original RM125C , no lug for the brake stay and no roller bearings .It has the fibre bushes . ???
-
So to stop people using the genuine optional arm just in case someone modifys a C arm is ludicrous .
said me NEVER.
No, not said by Brad, rather said by me because of this post back on page one:
Yep I bought one from states without brake tag, got an alloy one welded on.
I'm not even sure Don was serious with this post but it highlights the potential problem.
But like Brad, I don't care what people do. I don't even have a bike in this class, I was just commenting on what I saw as a potential issue if/when the alloy arms are accepted in pre 78. All of a sudden there might be 100 of them when only 20 really existed (to use Brad's numbers ;D) .. sort of like XY GTHO's ... at one stage it was reported there were more registered than were made ::)
The same applies to replica frames, engine cases and brake backing plates they are completely legal yet are made using modern material and processes. I don't think anyone suggests they should not be legal. If a part is identical in every way to an earlier bike then it would be legal. An RM125C engine is identical in everyway to an RM125B so can you run the 'later' engine. I would say yes because for all purposes it is a 1977 design
-
A C model cylinder and head have increased finning over the B model .Its easily identifiable.
-
There is absolutley no difference between a 74 75 76 KX 125 frame yet 75 and 76 are not flow ons go figure
Are you sure it's not considered a flow on?
Part # = 32002-091
Part Description = FRAME
Model Count = 3
KX125A 75 125 KX125 MOTOCROSS
KX125-A3 76 125 KX125 MOTOCROSS
KX125 74 125 KX125 MOTOCROSS
Part # = 33001-072
Part Description = SWING ARM
Model Count = 3
KX125A 75 125 KX125 MOTOCROSS
KX125-A3 76 125 KX125 MOTOCROSS
KX125 74 125 KX125 MOTOCROSS
Part # = 44001-142
Part Description = FRONT FORK
Model Count = 3
KX125A 75 125 KX125 MOTOCROSS
KX125-A3 76 125 KX125 MOTOCROSS
KX125 74 125 KX125 MOTOCROSS
Part # = 11001-101-21
Part Description = CYLINDER HEAD,FLAT BLACK
Model Count = 3
KX125A 75 125 KX125 MOTOCROSS
KX125-A3 76 125 KX125 MOTOCROSS
KX125 74 125 KX125 MOTOCROSS
Part # = 11005-135-21
Part Description = CYLINDER,FLAT BLACK
Model Count = 3
KX125A 75 125 KX125 MOTOCROSS
KX125-A3 76 125 KX125 MOTOCROSS
KX125 74 125 KX125 MOTOCROSS
Part # = 13036-047
Part Description = CRANKSHAFT ASSEMBLY
Model Count = 3
KX125A 75 125 KX125 MOTOCROSS
KX125-A3 76 125 KX125 MOTOCROSS
KX125 74 125 KX125 MOTOCROSS
Part # = 14001-5149
Part Description = CRANKCASE SET,FLAT BLACK
Model Count = 14
KD125 75 125 KD125 MOTOCROSS
KD125-A2 76 125 KD125 MOTOCROSS
KD125-A3 77 125 KD125 MOTOCROSS
KD125-A4 78 125 KD125 MOTOCROSS
KD125-A5 79 125 KD125 MOTOCROSS
KE125-A3 76 125 KE125 DUAL PURPOSE
KE125-A4 77 125 KE125 DUAL PURPOSE
KE125-A5 78 125 KE125 DUAL PURPOSE
KE125-A6 79 125 KE125 DUAL PURPOSE
KS125 74 120 KS125 DUAL PURPOSE
KS125A 75 120 KS125 DUAL PURPOSE
KX125A 75 125 KX125 MOTOCROSS
KX125-A3 76 125 KX125 MOTOCROSS
KX125 74 125 KX125 MOTOCROSS
Part # = 41034-031-21
Part Description = FRONT BRAKE DRUM ASSEMBLY,FLAT BLACK
Model Count = 3
KX125A 75 125 KX125 MOTOCROSS
KX125-A3 76 125 KX125 MOTOCROSS
KX125 74 125 KX125 MOTOCROSS
Part # = 42008-019-21
Part Description = REAR HUB COUPLING ASSEMBLY,FLAT BLACK
Model Count = 3
KX125A 75 125 KX125 MOTOCROSS
KX125-A3 76 125 KX125 MOTOCROSS
KX125 74 125 KX125 MOTOCROSS
-
The same applies to replica frames, engine cases and brake backing plates they are completely legal yet are made using modern material and processes. I don't think anyone suggests they should not be legal. If a part is identical in every way to an earlier bike then it would be legal. An RM125C engine is identical in everyway to an RM125B so can you run the 'later' engine. I would say yes because for all purposes it is a 1977 design
We're talking swing arms here, not frames, brake backing plates and engines ::)
Mental note to one self .. keep out of discussions involving eligibility of parts ;D
-
A C model cylinder and head have increased finning over the B model .Its easily identifiable.
C and B finning are the same, it was the oversquare A model with less finning.
-
Ok, so a 78 C model turns up with a B arm on it, how do you tell the difference
Are forks bigger, rubber mounted bars, engine numbers different, frame number different, turbo fitted. What distinguishes the C from the B
-
I smile every time this RM125B alloy swingarm subject comes up, but I still enjoy the read LOL :-) I'll break it down in to point form as I see it ....
* The part was listed in the 1977 parts catalogues.
* Other brands of alloy swingarms are legal for 'pre 78' (and the Suz one is not as good as those!).
* The fact that they came fitted to the first batch of C models released in late 1977 proves they were actually made.
* The part in question is different to the actual item on the very next production C model.
* There are many enthusuiasts that would like to run them, it's not like they're fitting anything that would give any significant advantage.
* Some VMX riders have mentioned seeing the actual item in 1977.
* The more this matter is dicussed, the more it appears it should be allowed as many think it is a unique part.
* Even many riders that don't ride the 'pre 78' 125 class are cool for it to be allowed.
* Part of racing VMX is about customizing a classic bike, if many want to do it, let's make this a happy world and allow them.
* The fact that this is a small community in which we all want to have fun and admire our bikes, this matter should officially be put to bed immediately.
Now .... I read somewhere that there was a Unitrak conversion for my KX250A5 back in 1979, you're all cool if I run it yeh? ;-)
-
A C model cylinder and head have increased finning over the B model .Its easily identifiable.
C and B finning are the same, it was the oversquare A model with less finning.
You sure ? If so thats another nazi myth debunked.
-
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1978-Suzuki-RM125-Aluminum-Swingarm-AHRMA-Vintage-MX-/221201614068?hash=item3380a4c4f4&item=221201614068&pt=Motorcycles_Parts_Accessories&vxp=mtr
Ended up bargain .Why not buy this instead of a 21 century "replica" for hundreds more.
-
A C model cylinder and head have increased finning over the B model .Its easily identifiable.
C and B finning are the same, it was the oversquare A model with less finning.
You sure ? If so thats another nazi myth debunked.
Yeh I had a B & C barrel for the RM I just sold. The only difference was the C barrel had more distance between the tranfers & exhaust port, so less fuel was lost out the exhaust, more midrange was the claim.
-
[/quote]
You sure ? If so thats another nazi myth debunked.
[/quote]
Yeh I had a B & C barrel for the RM I just sold. The only difference was the C barrel had more distance between the tranfers & exhaust port, so less fuel was lost out the exhaust, more midrange was the claim.
[/quote]
yer I knew about the transfers,I got the ADB artile for porting. I was going on information stated by the "experts" from the previous 27 pager. Cheers JO
-
So to stop people using the genuine optional arm just in case someone modifys a C arm is ludicrous .
said me NEVER.
I'm not even sure Don was serious with this post but it highlights the potential problem.
But like Brad, I don't care what people do. I don't even have a bike in this class, I was just commenting on what I saw as a potential issue if/when the alloy arms are accepted in pre 78. All of a sudden there might be 100 of them when only 20 really existed (to use Brad's numbers ;D)
So what? Why is that not in the spirit of the sport when instead of just fabricating a lug to go on a existing genuine part
whole arms are "replicated" from stock that ARE NOT EITHER original oem or aftermarket from the era and noone says bo.
-
So basically you just need a genuine 'optional' arm from 77 or an early C arm with the bushes instead of bearings and sort out a brake lug. Simple
What's next?
-
Ok, so a 78 C model turns up with a B arm on it, how do you tell the difference
Are forks bigger, rubber mounted bars, engine numbers different, frame number different, turbo fitted. What distinguishes the C from the B
The C model has a plastic tank which bolts to the frame unlike the B, and different front and rear guards, the C forks have alloy extenders attatched to the top of the legs and the forks stick up through the top clamp about 50mm resulting in the handlebar clamps being angled back and rubber mounted.
It has the alloy swingarm obviously and a floating rear brake and a different rear hub more like the 250/370.
The porting is a little different and the rest is pretty much the same as the B.
-
Ok for a C model to have an advantage over a B model it would have to have these things on it which wouldn't be very hard to identify. No contest
-
Yep last time i checked ::) however i dont have a current moms ??? to me its always been a huge oversight but because theres only a few around it seems no ones bothered .
The 250 , 400 , 450 are all completly different but the 125 should be listed as a flow on ;)
-
my c swing arm that came off the first 30 frame numbers has the lug and needle bearing.the other c swing arm i have came with bearings or bushes removed but they look the same size .i cant see any differance
-
So basically you just need a genuine 'optional' arm from 77 or an early C arm with the bushes instead of bearings and sort out a brake lug. Simple
What's next?
whats next is already here , its custom made swingarms and billet parts that never existed made to order for who ever has the $.
Seeing any hypocrisy yet ?
-
So basically you just need a genuine 'optional' arm from 77 or an early C arm with the bushes instead of bearings and sort out a brake lug. Simple
What's next?
whats next is already here , its custom made swingarms and billet parts that never existed made to order for who ever has the $.
Seeing any hypocrisy yet ?
I meant "what's next" as in 'problem solved' let's move on
It's not like anyone is trying to run a 200 in the 125 class. The parts were obviously available, common sense should prevail
-
Someones out of pills.
-
So basically you just need a genuine 'optional' arm from 77 or an early C arm with the bushes instead of bearings and sort out a brake lug. Simple
What's next?
whats next is already here , its custom made swingarms and billet parts that never existed made to order for who ever has the $.
Seeing any hypocrisy yet ?
Theres Hypocrisy to squash . Take your pick.
I meant "what's next" as in 'problem solved' let's move on
It's not like anyone is trying to run a 200 in the 125 class. The parts were obviously available, common sense should prevail
-
Enough is enough. You call me a cheat at every opportunity and in this thread a hypercrit. No threats here. I'm telling you that I won't cop anyone telling me that I'm either. Over to you for the last 'go' as I'm done with this thread.
I can eat alphabet soup and shit a better argument than you.
And I'm not your buddy.
-
Enough is enough. You call me a cheat at every opportunity and in this thread a hypercrit. No threats here. I'm telling you that I won't cop anyone telling me that I'm either. Over to you for the last 'go' as I'm done with this thread.
I can eat alphabet soup and shit a better argument than you.
And I'm not your buddy.
Well the thread is about a fairly rare pre 78 arm on ebay .I put it up for anyone who might be interested in bidding on it .That is all . Keep trying Mate.
-
Anther RM based debate slowly enters the dumbgeon :D
-
OK I spoke to 77 yo Alan Craig today, a SUZUKI Dealer from the mid 60's to the late 80's.
Alan sponsored a young Peter Carney on RM80's then RM125's
He also sponsored Chad Reed on RM80's before me.
Anyway Alan's best memory is twofold,
Peter's first year of 125's was the C model, but SUZUKI also gave him a slightly used B model that was fitted with the alloy arm as a practice bike, Alan's memory was the last shipment of B models had the alloy arm in the bike but it was not a floating rear brake. He did not retail any.
Peter went on to win the KID MOTOCROSS series on that C model.
SUZUKI gave Alan lots of trick parts for RM125's including ex Gaston Rahier titanium parts which Alan eventually gave me.
I have stayed out of this debate but I did have RM125 A,B and C's
I believe that there is no advantage in the alloy arm, I believe shocks with adjustable compression and rebound dampening do give an advantage, as does gold valves forks,
What would happen if someone turned up with an ex Gaston factory arm in his bike, how would he prove eligibility ? what if that arm was copied and readily available ?
-
The question then is "Who slightly used the B with the arm fitted before it was given to the dealer? "
Last shipment of B model arrives with no floating rear brake and alloy arm fitted. I am assuming last shipment would be first to second quarter of 1977.
Here is a 77 yr old man , with absolutely no vested interest in this and a Suzuki dealer in 1977 that was involved in motocross nearly 40 years ago. He recalls seeing B models with the alloy arm. Do I ask him to sign a stat dec. NO WAY, he should be taken on his word.
Thanks SON for the info.
-
Just remembering out load,
I am sure while I owned a motorcycle wreckers in the late 80's I purchased a very average B model fitted with a C type alloy arm, I kept that arm and several others so I am not sure if it had the lug or was a floater.
I have a friend who was very senior management at SUZUKI and was in charge of International MX Racing during the 70's. He has since retired but I will ask if he can assist.
-
Sorry but Alan's memory is not accurate, there's no way the last of the B models came with alloy swingarms.
The Jap bikes didn't change parts halfway thru a model run, they just bought out complete new models. We're not talking about Maico's here..
-
Normally I would say you are right , their just in time production with orders placed 6 months in advance etc etc, but this was a time when RM125's were going crazy around the world courtesy of Gaston hardly loosing any races, and multiple independent distributors all placing demands on the factory.
I toured the Hammamatsu factory in September 1982 and saw different spec same models going down the production line, eg 1981 GSX1100's ours had Alloy arms Canadian were steel, yet I sold 20 of them with steel arms.
Also you had Mayfairs, NSW had Hazell & Moores, then Cornell's days later, Mortlocks in WA.
I have also seen several models of SUZUKI have delayed production on second shipments while modified parts were produced.
-
[quote We're not talking about Maico's here..
[/quote]
Maico has nothing on late 70's early 80's DUCATI
A 1981 shipment of 40 Ducati SD900 Darmah's
All supposedly of the same specification and Black colour.
Try 20 with 32mm Carbs and Silentium Exhausts.
10 with 40mm Dellortos and Contis fitted.
10 with 32mm Carbs and Silentiums Fitted with 40mm Dellortos and Contis wrapped up in the box.
36 Black bikes 2x Burgundy Red and 2x Green.
Just gotta love them Italians
-
So far we have some people who think the last B's had alloy swingarms, others saying the first C's didn't have floating brakes. When you bought a B you got a bike with a steel swingarm, you bought a C it had an alloy swingarm and floating brake, that's how they were advertised and that's what you got.
I was at a mx race every weekend and have got every brochure and magazine from the era and this forum is the first I've heard these claims.
People seem to be just having a stab in the dark and all it's doing is clouding the issue and confusing everyone.
-
I agree, so how do you explain that I have five C model 125 arms,
2 with lugs 3 that are floaters??
Where did these MYSTERY arms come from,
-
Not sure, I know that the 77 alloy arm existed and it was painted black because I saw a couple in 77. Maybe that's what the 2 with lugs are that you have?
-
i have a c with the alloy arm that has the brake lug on it its one of the first 30 from the start of the c numbers ,it has the floating backing plate,and arm conected to the frame
-
(http://i1342.photobucket.com/albums/o778/crs-and-rms/047_zps4fe1159b.jpg) came off a very early c model
-
Just remembering out load,
I am sure while I owned a motorcycle wreckers in the late 80's I purchased a very average B model fitted with a C type alloy arm, I kept that arm and several others so I am not sure if it had the lug or was a floater.
I have a friend who was very senior management at SUZUKI and was in charge of International MX Racing during the 70's. He has since retired but I will ask if he can assist.
Once again that would be appreciated
-
Ill say it again as I have in the other 1950483 posts on this, I had a alloy arm on my b before the end of 77 it was painted black , had the stay arm lug ( even though my old man converted it to full floater same as Yamaha had) and the welding is not as great as the c model ones. The reason I know this is A: I raced the bike and B: I still have it!!
I makes no difference , until the oz rules state it is allowed it will always be a contentious issue to some.
Com`e race in NZ anything goes ;D
-
asasin,
"The reason I know this is A: I raced the bike and B: I still have it!!"
If you still have this original bike is that not the proof that is needed :o
-
My research has discovered the following points :
Point # 1 : MA know nothing of the B arm being illegal
Point # 2 : The only place this arm is illegal, according to some, is this forum
Point # 3 : Somebody supposedly got barred from an event because of the arm. Till this day nobody can name the event or the entrant.
Would you be prepared to put together a Statutory Declaration confirming that you had one fitted to your B in 1977 as I have it on very good authority that is all that is required to get this over the line.
Cheers
-
asasin,
"The reason I know this is A: I raced the bike and B: I still have it!!"
If you still have this original bike is that not the proof that is needed :o
I have argued this at length with another forum member and he insists I have to prove it, photo or something with a date ! this I do not have unfortunately. Also as I am in NZ I am sure MA will not recognize it.
-
fork the forum member. Everyone knows the onus of proof bullshit rule. If you had it get a Stat Dec together and we will see. As per PM
-
fork the forum member. Everyone knows the onus of proof bullshit rule. If you had it get a Stat Dec together and we will see. As per PM
Really? Okay I will sign a stat. Declaration and just say I had one. I never even rode back then but sounds like you have the answer as opposed to proving it. I can't remember what I had for breakfast yesterday so I am amazed people can remember what happened nearly forty years ago.