Mark. Read my posts.
I did read your posts Ted. I wasn't writing about you're case specifically, I was generalising.
As I said earlier I don't know what's kosher about the RM125B alloy swingarm but I do know that our esteemed rule book has the over riding statement that to be eligible for a particular division the bike or major component must be of the
"designated year" as described by the factory. Although there are a lot of discrepancies with the description, overall it's worked pretty well. For a long time Bultaco owners cried from the mountain tops that because the Mk8 Pursang was available in 1974, it must surely be eligible for pre 75. The reason it's
not allowed is that the Mk 8 is designated by the factory as the 1975 model....end of argument.
Now, allow me to play the devils advocate for a moment. I think it's a given that the Suzuki RM125-B is legal for the pre -78 class using the factory steel swing arm. Would it be a possibility that the optional alloy swingarm might be a
designated 1978 factory update? If that's indeed the case, I'd say that the swingarm is
not legal by standards of precedent. I'll give an example, I can't use a 1" longer 1975 Maico swing arm on my 1974 model even though the 1975 model was released in late 1974. And another...you're not allowed to use a modified alloy Pro-Link swingarm from an 81 CR250 Honda on your 80 model twin shocker.
The factories often played the year pushing game by calling a particular updated part the following years part..i.e. the RM-B swingarm being touted as a 1978 update (
even though it was sold in 1977). I don't have a strong opinion either way on this but if a precedent has been set by other situations, you have to go with the results of that precedent.
