RM125 B SWINGARM

[Montynut]

 
Steel swing arm for me. RM125Bs had remote res shocks standard

Get a shock V/V job for your YZ-D makes them the same as much later jobbies

See what you have started TED        

[Ted]

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 th at 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

Now that makes sense. OK anybody know of anyone that could possibly get a Stat. Dec. together

[09.0]

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.

That's where this all falls into a heap with fudging of rules. He can put a 78 part on his suzuki, why can't i put a 78 arm on my yz?
Next bloke wants to put a 78 front end on his because old mate has a 78 arm on his yz. Where does it end? In dutch twin shock of course. Forest for the trees guys. I am not talking about this particular swingarm debate either. If JohnnyO says they were available, that's good enough for me. The next question will be, how many 78 swingarms will be cut and shut and called optional 77 arms then?

[motomaniac]

The next question will be, how many 78 swingarms will be cut and shut and called optional 77 arms then?

Who gives a shit? Its alot closer to original than fatbars or a modern "replica" arm made last year that never existed anyway.

[09.0]

The next question will be, how many 78 swingarms will be cut and shut and called optional 77 arms then?

Who gives a shit? Its alot closer to original than fatbars or a modern "replica" arm made last year that never existed anyway.

Me. Same as the replica arm that isn't a replica or fat bars.

[Ted]

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 th at 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

Now that makes sense. OK anybody know of anyone that could possibly get a Stat. Dec. together

[motomaniac]

The next question will be, how many 78 swingarms will be cut and shut and called optional 77 arms then?

Who gives a shit? Its alot closer to original than fatbars or a modern "replica" arm made last year that never existed anyway.

Me. Same as the replica arm that isn't a replica or fat bars.

Are you joking? You had fatbars on a pre75 CZ and run a swingarm that is meant for a long travel Maico with 17.5" fox shoxs on your pre 75 Maico . (I can feel another abusive PM coming on )

[Ted]

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.

That's where this all falls into a heap with fudging of rules. He can put a 78 part on his suzuki, why can't i put a 78 arm on my yz?
Next bloke wants to put a 78 front end on his because old mate has a 78 arm on his yz. Where does it end? In dutch twin shock of course. Forest for the trees guys. I am not talking about this particular swingarm debate either. If JohnnyO says they were available, that's good enough for me. The next question will be, how many 78 swingarms will be cut and shut and called optional 77 arms then?

I see your point Brad and would agree with you if this was a 78 part, It is a part manufactured in 1976. Whether it was sold, bought, available or forking stolen the fact remains that it is still a part manufactured in 1976 . Not 77, not 78  ,79,80 etc. the only thing stopping this part being legal on this discussion site ( and by the way MA have stated to me they know nothing of its illegality ) is a Statutory Declaration declaring they existed, not bought, not sold, just existed.

[SON]

Alan Craig should be the guy with the expertise and memory,

[Ted]

Could you please forward me any contact information you may have

Cheers

[SON]

I will visit him on Wednesday and see what he remembers
Besides being the SUZUKI dealer at Boolaroo
Alan purchased Hazell & Moore in Hunter St in 1977

[JohnnyO]

Unfortunately Phil Thew is no longer with us so we can't ask him.

[Ted]

Thanks SON, much appreciated

[09.0]

Are you joking? You had fatbars on a pre75 CZ and run a swingarm that is meant for a long travel Maico with 17.5" fox shoxs on your pre 75 Maico . (I can feel another abusive PM coming on )

That time of the month again is it girlfriend?
 So you're the only one with an opinion that matters? So you're the fashion police too?
I'm proud of my bikes and the way they look. Not to mention that they are legal. Never seen any of yours? Maybe I have but they probably don't stand out.Probably as bland as their owner.
 Abusive? Well you keep on referring me to being a cheat. I said then and I'll say it again. I take great offence to that and am taking it very personally. When we meet again, I guarantee you it will be on. You've got a big cyber mouth and it will be reality shut. There, no need for a pm.

[Simo63]

If JohnnyO says they were available, that's good enough for me. The next question will be, how many 78 swingarms will be cut and shut and called optional 77 arms then?

I've followed this thread and I can see a lot of passion involved as this issue keeps getting kicked around.  And I don't want to buy into this arguement at all, in any way, BUT as a bystander, without any vested interest in the topic at all, what Brad has mentioned above is the bit that gets me.  How can a 78 arm be modified or retro fitted with a brake stay arm that wasn't originally there (as has already been mentioned in this thread a couple of pages back if I read it correctly) and be legal?  Surely that's not in keeping with the spirit of the rules and the competition?