basic question suzuki RH

[JohnnyO]

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.

[firko]

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.

[JohnnyO]

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.

[Marc.com]

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.

[reviseur]

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.

[JohnnyO]

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.

[JohnnyO]

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 .

[Marc.com]

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.

[Davey Crocket]

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.  

[Davey Crocket]

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!!!

[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.

[firko]

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.

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.

[Marc.com]

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

[JohnnyO]

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.

[Marc.com]

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.