did we ever come to a conclusion about the alloy swingarm for the pre'78 RM125's

[DR]

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

[LWC82PE]

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.

[DR]

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

[motomaniac]

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.

[211kawasaki]

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

[DR]

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.

[firko]

 

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.















 

[TM BILL]

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.

Doc whats the date of print on the inside back cover of that parts book

[Suzukal]

On the one I have, it's the fourth edition, printed Dec 77, published Dec 77....

[DR]

ditto Al, 4th Edition December 1977

[oldfart]

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.

[TM BILL]

So it was available in Dec 77 , does anyone know what month the Rm 125C was released in Australia ?

[crs-and-rms]

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

[TM BILL]

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  

[crs-and-rms]

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