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

[DR]

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

[TM BILL]

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  

[crs-and-rms]

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 

[Lozza]

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........
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.

[TM BILL]

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 

[crs-and-rms]

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

[mainline]

so is this legal for pre78?

[crs-and-rms]

very nice what head is on it?

[JohnnyO]

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.

[motomaniac]

very nice what head is on it?

A FOX head I believe.Pretty rare.

[DR]

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

[motomaniac]

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

My answer is yes and yes there seems to be a bit of hypocracy regarding this and the use of modern tech components.

[DR]

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

[LWC82PE]

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.

[bigk]

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