RM125 B SWINGARM

[JohnnyO]

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!!

[Montynut]

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.

[Ted]

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 "

[motomaniac]

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.

[Ted]

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

[Montynut]

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

[motomaniac]

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.

[JohnnyO]

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]

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.

[Rookie#1]

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

[Tahitian_Red]

Glad to see the RM125B is one of the most discussed bikes here (swingarm and forks). 

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).

[Tossa]

on Gumtree in perth

http://www.gumtree.com.au/s-ad/clarkson/motorcycles/suzuki-rm-125-b-c-1977/1016446819

[Montynut]

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

[Rookie#1]

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!!   

[Big Scotty]

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.