Works bikes

[Davey Crocket]

Your a bunch of sarcastic funny carnts... . Kev, it's all worked out with modern technology.

[suzuki59]

As far as i know its the real deal  however i didn't buy it in 1977 from a Suzuki dealer so ??

I bought it off ebay about 10 yrs ago from the US .

But i have welded a new cradle from a C model into a B frame as the B one was rotted out . The C frame had a badly bent steering head and backbone so became a donor frame .

I suppose technically it is now not eligible for pre 78  i couldn't say what year the mig wire was made that was used to fuse the two pieces  could be it has to go into pre 2010   

Shit Ira, wait until the Hobbit finds out about this.Tank-gate will be a minor skirmish once the hairy footed monster gets his teeth into this scandal !!

[Ted]

Hold off selling the B arm till after the weekend Bill. If its ridgey didge, like mine, you can name your own price


PM sent Bill

[asasin]

It easy to tell the early optional arms as the welding looks ( all joints) looks like it was done by the Suzuki apprentice scheme , the C ones are much tidier by comparison.But really who F&*(en cares they are the same thing measurement wise!! now GO race!

[Ted]

Incorrect

[Nathan S]

Like all eligibility threads, this one has an awful lot of replies based on what people think the rules say, and based on what people want the rules to say.

If you look at what the rules actually say, then the answer is clear.

Just like SexMax.

[09.0]

Come on Ted. The barrow is the old chest nut alloy arm. Which has nothing to do with a works bike.

[firko]

This is doing my head in. As Davey Crocket says............ Ted, the optional alloy arm for RM125B's is legal....always has been....it's just you guy's make a mountain out of a molehill.
 .

[TM BILL]

This is doing my head in. As Davey Crocket says............ Ted, the optional alloy arm for RM125B's is legal....always has been....it's just you guy's make a mountain out of a molehill.
 .

Mark why was Ted told by an official ( i dont know who ) that the thing is illegal  Ted went through all the channels ie MA as is always advised on here and was told by an official its illegal .

This is where the system falls over, you and Joan are both event scrutineers and are saying yep go for it , yet in the build upto the event Ted tried to get clarification and was told the opposite .

 

[firko]

I don't know who Ted spoke to. I'm only offering an opinion based on what people who know such stuff have told me. It all comes down to Ted having to present documented proof that the swingarm was available for the B model. No matter who said whatever, if the proof is documented it must be declared legal. What is illegal is a C model swingarm modified to look like a B version.  Even though I think the difference is two fifths of fluck all, we have to go with the written interpretation......"all major components must be manufactured before December 31 1977".

[Ted]

Let it go Bill.

I will prove to them on Friday it's not a butchered C arm. Then they will be forced to make a call either way.

4 officials 4 different answers.

I am starting to wonder if any of them have ever viewed one.

[Nathan S]

This is doing my head in. As Davey Crocket says............ Ted, the optional alloy arm for RM125B's is legal....always has been....it's just you guy's make a mountain out of a molehill.
 .

Mark why was Ted told by an official ( i dont know who ) that the thing is illegal  Ted went through all the channels ie MA as is always advised on here and was told by an official its illegal .

This is where the system falls over, you and Joan are both event scrutineers and are saying yep go for it , yet in the build upto the event Ted tried to get clarification and was told the opposite .

 

+1.

The case of the RM-B alloy arms vs modified RM-C alloy arms is completely retarded.
 
The absolute impossibility of determining the way the factory welded the brake lug makes it impossible to enforce any "no modified RM-C arms" rule. Without a solid way of determining the difference between the two identical items, then accepting all arms as being the optional B arm is the only enforcable response.

Noting Firko's comment about the age of bits, how do we justify the legality of the various replica frames in all eras from Pre-70 onward? The answer is much harder than I thought it would be...

[Montynut]

rule GCR 18.2.1.2.

Ted this is the only rule you need to satisfy same as you have been told several hundred times since you bought the bike. Almost everyone agrees that it makes SFA to the bikes performance. You just have to be able to prove that it was available for the 'B' model in 1977. Another several pages almost exactly the same as several pages early in the year. The problem is no one seems to be confident enough or actually have any evidence other than a parts book (which is specifically ruled out by the MOMS) that the alloy arms were ever actually sold or even available.

Without covering old ground the early 'C' models had the arm with the lug attached the original sales leaflets showed the lug on the swingarm. Surely one Suzuki dealer  or owner from the day will sign a Statutory Declaration. I hope that you can run the arm so this bloody thread does not keep coming up then what about a floating brake. I had a 'B' model in '77 with a floating rear brake is it legal should be, now can I have the optional alloy swingarm with a floating brake should be able to, right. Now if I cut the brake lug off my optional alloy arm because I have a floating rear brake is that OK, well that would make it an awful lot like a 'C' model

Oh GOD that would not be legal, RIGHT

[Nathan S]

Stick to your guns, Ted.
As Greg just said, the only thing that really matters is whether you can make a good-enough case that the alloy arm existed in 1977 for 1977 models. If you think you can do that, then that's all that matters.

Based on what is in the rules, the rest of it WILL go your way if push comes to shove. The stuff about availability, the style of the weld, etc etc are all going to evaporate very quickly once it becomes about the rules, rather than opinions/gut feelings/etc.

[Ted]

This is doing my head in. As Davey Crocket says............ Ted, the optional alloy arm for RM125B's is legal....always has been....it's just you guy's make a mountain out of a molehill.
 .

Mark why was Ted told by an official ( i dont know who ) that the thing is illegal  Ted went through all the channels ie MA as is always advised on here and was told by an official its illegal .

This is where the system falls over, you and Joan are both event scrutineers and are saying yep go for it , yet in the build upto the event Ted tried to get clarification and was told the opposite .

 

+1.

The case of the RM-B alloy arms vs modified RM-C alloy arms is completely retarded.
 
The absolute impossibility of determining the way the factory welded the brake lug makes it impossible to enforce any "no modified RM-C arms" rule. Without a solid way of determining the difference between the two identical items, then accepting all arms as being the optional B arm is the only enforcable response.

Noting Firko's comment about the age of bits, how do we justify the legality of the various replica frames in all eras from Pre-70 onward? The answer is much harder than I thought it would be...

I have found the information to determine what is a optional B arm as opposed to a modified C arm.