Mark 3 Identification

[DewCatTea-Bob]

____ Hey d.d., glad to have your added input included to this thread (regardless of whether or not you help us reach any common-consensus) !



[quote= double diamond ...
" The first Mark 3’s were Mach 1’s with the “magneto” (as commonly referred to, but not a true magneto) ignition "
" and an engine number of the format DM250 M1 0XXXX. "

____ Here's my-own interpretation/deduction of your above stated-wording (only concerning just the very-first narrow-case "Mark 3" model)...
I gather that you mean to proclaim that the very-first production-batch of the 1965 model-year of the 'Mark 3' model, had been fitted with the leftover-stock of Mach-I motors (which must've been refitted with the electrical-parts employed by the Mark-three motors),, is that correct ?
I-myself have no firsthand experience to support that,, however I think I may've once heard from someone who thought their Mark-3 had a M1-motor in it),
so I really can't contest whether such a combination ever occurred.



" and the minimal electrical system in place of the Mach 1 battery/coil ignition and more road worthy electrical system. "

____ Right, as the "minimal" electrical-system employed on the n-c.Mark-three model-line was originally copied-over from the 250-Motocross model-line !



" This model had
provisions for rearsets welded to the frame "

____ As far as I-myself know,, ALL 1965 Mark-3 models not-only came with those frame-work "provisions" (as well as those intended for the tool-boxes) added to the Mark-three's frame, but also came with ALL the related rear-set parts included as well !
(However, I suppose it could possibly be that the very-first batch of such 1965 Mark-3 models [or very-last batch of Mark-III models, supposedly fitted with M1-motors] may've simply been left more similar to the previous Mark-III model's more plain setup [in regards to the type of foot-pedals].)



" The 1966 owners handbook pic posted by Ventodue is an accurate depiction "

____ Sorry but, (while I'd certainly LIKE it if the factory always had such done in perfect-harmony with real-life), that statement I can-not agree with. _ Cuz certainly by 1966, all front-wheel speedo.drive hub-covers were of the type with the fake air-scoops !
__ Now on the other-hand, if that picture-drawing were claimed to be of one of the very-first/(rare!) 1965 Mark-3 models fitted with a M1-motor, (such of which I-myself have never seen an example of !),, THEN maybe I could accept that-pic.drawing as being that of a version which had really existed.
So unless someone can provide some convincing evidence to the contrary,, I STILL maintain that that-depiction had originally been of the likes of a pre-65 Mark-III manual-cover, modified to better represent a 1965-model with it's Mark 3 tool-boxes added-on.



" if the color reference to “bright black” describes the tank color, I’ve never seen a black gas tank of this type. "

____ I've only ever known-of that color for the large-tank style to be factory-installed on just the GT-model.



" The M3 engine numbers succeeded the M1 engines, presumably after Ducati had discontinued the Mach 1. "

____ I think you must mean that after the discontinuation of M1-motor production, rather than after the discontinuation of the entire Mach-I model-production.
As I don't think Ducati would've held-up production of the 1965 Mark-3 model whilst completing as many as over 1400 Mach-I model/bikes !



" The M3’s had the Grimeca 3 fin hubs installed, "

____ I certainly don't disagree that the 3-rib/fin hubs became employed before 1966, however I'm quite sure that they all were matched-together with the hub-covers with the fake air-scoops !


Dukaddy-DUKEs,
DCT-Bob

[double diamond]

Glad to join in the fray Bob. I think of these questions as a puzzle; as more pieces are added, a story reveals itself. With enough documentation, the story may represent what actually transpired! (BTW, I’m only addressing N/C Mark 3 models in the following as should be obvious) The pieces I can add derive from examples observed at various shows and all sorts of clues found on the web as well as first hand observation of a disassembled M1 engine and another near-complete motorcycle. Both of these M1 engines had the Mark 3/250 motocross type electrical system. As far as assigning a year to specific model specifications, I’ll leave that authority to others. I observe too much in the way of model variation even within a one year period to positively identify a particular specification with a specific year. These M1 Mark 3’s have been a particular puzzle since they are not well documented in contemporary Ducati literature although they are not as rare as one might expect. They seem to be a transitionary specification between the 1965 type Diana Mark III shown in Berliner press releases, and the more comprehensively documented Mark 3 with M3 engine designation that appeared after M1 production concluded. Basically, it appears Berliner did not want to import the Mach 1 but Ducati was in production of the M1 specification, so they contrived a model that was palatable to Berliner. This was a Mach 1 with the frame painted black, the earlier Diana fuel tank, Mach 1 engine with a scrambler/Diana Mark III electrical system but with a 150mm headlight (which also appeared on the 1965(?) Diana Mark III) and the US market seat installed on all Mark 3’s. I’ve seen these transition Mark 3’s with clip-ons and smooth fork as well as with crown mounted handlebars. The frame had rearset bracketry, so rearsets were certainly an option. But most I’ve seen (not many to be sure) have had forward foot controls. What is pretty obvious is that rearsets were not favored by most American buyers so Berliner may have consented to accept these converted Mach 1’s only if the rearsets were deleted. The evidence is inconclusive. They also appear to have been delivered with a Veglia tachometer unlike the Mach 1 which had none. Regarding the pic from the owner’s handbook, I’m not identifying this model with a particular year but, rather, with a particular specification that is consistent with actual examples I have observed on a number of occasions, i.e. the M1 type Mark 3. The M1 type still employed the 7 fin Campagnolo hubs with the smooth speedo drive plate (no faux air-scoop) which is consistent with the Mach 1 chassis that it’s based on. The Grimeca scalloped hubs had the faux air scoop on the speedo drive plate as installed on the later M3 type Mark 3. As far as the transition from M1 to M3 engines, I suspect that Ducati was in production of the M1 engines from 1964-1965. This production was installed in the M1 type Mark 3 (US market) and Mach 1 (ROW). When production of a Mark 3 specification engine was resumed, it was the M3 series. The serial number sequence of M1 vs. M3 engines was an entirely different number range, with M1 as DM250M1 0XXXX and M3 starting (near as I can tell) at DM250M3 94XXX. This agrees with your assertion that Ducati did not delay production of the M3 type Mark 3 to complete production of the M1 type. I expect Mach 1 and M1 type Mark 3 production had concluded and were parked in a warehouse awaiting orders before M3 type Mark 3 production commenced. So, basically, I don’t think we disagree on anything since I’m not taking a position on assigning years to specification. Just making the pieces of the puzzle fit together better!

[DewCatTea-Bob]

[quote= double diamond ... " I think of these questions as a puzzle; as more pieces are added, a story reveals itself. "

____ I know what you mean, and it's somewhat satisfying to properly fit all the pieces together (to hopefully see the big-picture).


" With enough documentation, the story may represent what actually transpired! "

____ Indeed so, I just wish we had more trustworthy -(not to mean 'more-trustworthy') pieces of source-material.



" The pieces I can add derive from examples observed at various shows and all sorts of clues found on the web "

____ I wouldn't necessarily trust web/net-sources or bike-shows more recent than the mid-70s, (unless the examples aren't contrary in any way to older piece-examples).



" as well as first hand observation of a disassembled M1 engine and another near-complete motorcycle. Both of these M1 engines had the Mark 3/250 motocross type electrical system. "

____ I gather that you mean to indicate that these M1-stamped motors were original to stock Mark-3 model/bikes.



" As far as assigning a year to specific model specifications, I’ll leave that authority to others. "

____ I believe that the factory parts-books are pretty-much the most trustworthy source for determining the model-year for the various model-versions. _ And according-to such sources, the last model-year for the Mark-III was 1964 !



" I observe too much in the way of model variation even within a one year period to positively identify a particular specification with a specific year. "

____ I assume that what you mean by "within a one year period", you meant within a 'model-year' and not just any 365-day period, (cuz otherwise, that statement of yours really wouldn't be saying anything significant !).
__ I do know that such oem.parts-variations did indeed frequently occur for the bevel-type L-twins,, BUT until the 450-R/T came-out in 1971, before then it was my experience that there were next to NO model/parts production-variations which happened to occur during model-years of any OHC.Duke-model ! _ As they all pretty-much ALWAYS stuck-to the same as indicated within the factory parts-books, (at-least for within the USA) !
I challenge anyone to present any evidence of a (made for U.S.) Duke-model that came factory-stock with different production-parts than that which is indicated in any factory parts-book !



" These M1 Mark 3’s have been a particular puzzle since they are not well documented in contemporary Ducati literature although they are not as rare as one might expect. "

____ Even-though M1-stamped motors factory-installed into early 1965 Mark-3 models is a new revelation for myself to learn, I guess I can now accept that there probably was a batch of 400 to 500 produced that way. _ And so long as they all got n-c.Mark-three electrical-parts installed, then the M1-stamp is the ONLY thing out-of-place for the Mark-3 motor-line and is therefore effectively IRRELEVANT !



" They seem to be a transitionary specification between the 1965 type Diana Mark III shown in Berliner press releases, and the more comprehensively documented Mark 3 with M3 engine designation "

____ Indeed it does seem that that-conclusion seems to be fairly reasonable (for M1-stamped motors to end-up installed within the earliest Mark-3 models).
__ Also,, it's not at-all surprising that Berliner press-releases referred-to a '1965 Mark-III' model, as they no-doubt still had a supply of leftover 1964 Mark-III models still left in stock to get unloaded for 1965.
Not only did I-myself own a couple of Mark-III models which were titled to be '1965', but I also noted several others likewise indicated as being '1965', (which they really could-not have been, [with their motor-numbers between 88xxx & 92xxx] ).



" This was a Mach 1 with the frame painted black,
Mach 1 engine with a scrambler/Diana Mark III electrical system but with a 150mm headlight (which also appeared on the 1965(?) Diana Mark III) "

____ I know that the very-first 4-speed Mark-III model-version (with no brake-light), came with the same small-sized +-headlamp-shell as was stock on the 250-Motocross models,, and when the Mark-III was made to become street-legal, it then got the headlamp-shell which could hold a speedometer, (I think sometime in 1963).
I don't think I've ever seen a parts-book which covers the 4-speed Mark-III version.



" The frame had rearset bracketry, so rearsets were certainly an option. But most I’ve seen (not many to be sure) have had forward foot controls.
What is pretty obvious is that rearsets were not favored by most American buyers so Berliner may have consented to accept these converted Mach 1’s only if the rearsets were deleted.
Regarding the pic from the owner’s handbook, I’m not identifying this model with a particular year but, rather, with a particular specification that is consistent with actual examples I have observed on a number of occasions, i.e. the M1 type Mark 3. The M1 type still employed the 7 fin Campagnolo hubs with the smooth speedo drive plate (no faux air-scoop) "

____ Okay then, I regress,, I guess I was wrong to have stated that that depicted pic.drawing was of a 'Mark-III' touched-up with Mark 3 tool-boxes, and-so very well could-have been an actual picture of a real 'Mark-3' (first-run*) model-version -(* with M1-motor, [which I seem to have been ignorant of] ).



" As far as the transition from M1 to M3 engines, I suspect that Ducati was in production of the M1 engines from 1964-1965. This production was installed in the M1 type Mark 3 (US market) and Mach 1 (ROW). "

____ I had always assumed that the inspired-reason for Mark-3 models to have adopted the Mach-I motor's top-end, was planned solely for the intended-goal of improving the Mark-three model-line's performance,, however I'm now suspecting that the change to the Mark-three motor's top-end was rather simply due-to too-many M1.spec motors having been produced, and-so the resulting benefit to the Mark-3 model-line was actually never really planned ahead of time. (?) _ And if that's really what the case actually was,, then if the U.S./American-market had been suitable enough to have consumed ALL the Mach-I models it could get, THEN it's reasonably likely that the Mark-3 model-line probably would've remained pretty-much the very-same as it had been (as a Mark-III), since there then wouldn't have been any M1-motors to find an alternate home for.
So-then if that previously-unexpected situation/circumstance was really the actual case,, then it seems that we owe the happenstance mismatch (between M1-motor over-production & actual Berliner model-demand), for the particular creation of the (originally concocted) 'Mark-3' motor-tune/type. _ (Which would then mean that Ducati's foremost reputation-innovation was rather originally due-to an inadvertent & unintended circumstance, [instead of the presumed result of advanced innovation-work],, and-so therefore, the particular 'Mark 3' model-type originally was actually just a mere unexpected-concoction.)
__ I used to wonder exactly why Ducati didn't continue with keeping the Mark-III camshaft-model in the Mark-3 engine, (and assumed it must've been mostly due-to economical reasons). _ But now it seems that a mere happenstance-circumstance was actually that which was really responsible for the Mark-III engine's top-end parts originally being converted-over to the very-same as that of the Mach-I model's,, and-so since the very-first Mark-3 motors started-out with the M1-cam, then the rest of the Mark-3 engine-line logically had to thusly follow-suit in like-order.
__ Does anyone think this above conclusive-explanation could possibly be another actual piece of the Mark-three model-line puzzle ?


____ Good post d.d., thanks for your added input !


Dukaddy-DUKEs,
DCT-Bob

[DewCatTea-Bob]

____ I had always assumed that the inspired-reason for Mark-3 models to have adopted the Mach-I motor's top-end, was planned solely for the intended-goal of improving the Mark-three model-line's performance,, however I'm now suspecting that the change to the Mark-three motor's top-end was rather simply due-to too-many M1.spec motors having been produced, and-so the resulting benefit to the Mark-3 model-line was actually never really planned ahead of time. (?) _ And if that's really what the case actually was,, then if the U.S./American-market had been suitable enough to have consumed ALL the Mach-I models it could get, THEN it's reasonably likely that the Mark-3 model-line probably would've remained pretty-much the very-same as it had been (as a Mark-III), since there then wouldn't have been any M1-motors to find an alternate home for.
So-then if that previously-unexpected situation/circumstance was really the actual case,, then it seems that we owe the happenstance mismatch (between M1-motor over-production & actual Berliner model-demand), for the particular creation of the (originally concocted) 'Mark-3' motor-tune/type. _ (Which would then mean that Ducati's foremost reputation-innovation was rather originally due-to an inadvertent & unintended circumstance, [instead of the presumed result of advanced innovation-work],, and-so therefore, the particular 'Mark 3' model-type originally was actually just a mere unexpected-concoction.)
__ I used to wonder exactly why Ducati didn't continue with keeping the Mark-III camshaft-model in the Mark-3 engine, (and assumed it must've been mostly due-to economical reasons). _ But now it seems that a mere happenstance-circumstance was actually that which was really responsible for the Mark-III engine's top-end parts originally being converted-over to the very-same as that of the Mach-I model's,, and-so since the very-first Mark-3 motors started-out with the M1-cam, then the rest of the Mark-3 engine-line logically had to thusly follow-suit in like-order.
__ Does anyone think this above conclusive-explanation could possibly be another actual piece of the Mark-three model-line puzzle ?

____ I'm somewhat disappointed that with over 300 of us registered here, that none have bothered to post any of their-own thoughts concerning this new-revelation (now experienced by the likes of myself, if not also by the likes of those such as d.d.), concerning the reputation of the notorious "Diana" Mark-3 model-line.
Perhaps most everyone-else here is too young to have any clear recollection of the motorcycle-scene of the mid-60s. _ Let me elaborate a bit...
__ Back in 1964 (prior to the release of the Mark-3), the then accepted kings of (stock motorcycle) acceleration-speed, were the twin-carb equipped models of the 650-Brit.bikes. _ But by late 1965, Ducati's mere-250cc Mark-3 model amazingly took-over as the new leader of that highly prized reputation-sect, by not-only being able to accelerate just as hard as those 650cc-Brit.motor powered cycle-models, but by also attaining a higher top-speed ! _ And that was a big-thing back at the time, (much like the rep which Kawasaki once attained with the introduction of their ZX11 in the early-90s) !
__ It has always been assumed that the Mark-3's astounding speed capabilities were the result of a purposefully calculated-effort by Ducati to accomplish the goals which the Mark-3 was able to attain, and-so that (seemingly rightfully) gave Ducati a well deserved new-found sense of respect.
However NOW, it seems that pretty-much none of that was ever really true, since the Mark-3 model's engine was actually the result of a happenstance of circumstances that merely led-to the unplanned creation of a hybrid M1/Mark-3 model, of which it's astonishing abilities were quite possibly actually somewhat of a surprise even to Ducati, as much as anyone-else.
__ This new-revelation (at-least for me-myself), is a disconcerting conception that's really difficult to fully digest as actually being factually-true ! _ However since d.d. confirms the tales which are said to have been published in books on the subject -(that M1-motors were the very-first factory-installed within the initial-batch of the Mark-3 model-line), then I guess I have-to recondition my mind and eventually accept this new conception as the actual real-fact on the Mark-3 creation-story.
But since I have no personal experience of my-own with this M1-motor equipped Mark-3 matter, I'm still in limbo as to reaching a FIRM-conclusion concerning this issue.
_ So I'd much appreciate the opinion of some other senior-members here, as to whether my presented thoughts concerning all this, is really valid any at all !
So PLEASE, somebody,, please help push me off the fence, (one way or the other), as to whether any of what I've come to consider concluding of this Mark-3 model origin-issue, is actually valid-deduction or not !
Certainly there's got to-be SOMEBODY-else here who has their-own thoughts to offer, concerning this perplexing matter !?


Hopeful-Cheers,
-Bob

[dsmess]

I agree,
I still have the 250M1 engine from my 'Mark 3' college bike. It is #01710. It has the flywheel-mag ignition.
Dave

>Although I don’t have the Falloon book to verify the context of his statement regarding when the M1 engine number series concluded, production >exceeded 01461 by at least 400+ units.

[DewCatTea-Bob]

I agree,
I still have the 250M1 engine from my 'Mark 3' college bike. It is #01710. It has the flywheel-mag ignition.
Dave

>Although I don’t have the Falloon book to verify the context of his statement regarding when the M1 engine number series concluded, production >exceeded 01461 by at least 400+ units.

____ THANKS-much for bothering yourself to enter your post here, (instead of sitting-on your uniquely important information) !
__ While the balance-scale was already tilted, (and-thus merely somewhat upsetting the long-held and very-prestigious Mark-3 reputation),, your STRONGLY-related & very-PERTINENT post-info fully TIPS the scale (for me at-least), and helps insert a final-nail into the coffin ! ... As it's now rather quite certain that the foremost renowned Ducati-reputation (gained from their notoriously great Mark-3), wasn't really earned, but rather STUMBLED-UPON !
__ It would be at-least interesting to know exactly where the '01461' came from. ! _ I had wondered if perhaps that was the number of the last completed Mach-I at the very-point when Ducati got the word to produce Mark-3 models instead, (as I believe Ducati always produced std.production-batches in 50-unit increments),, and therefore possibly all M1-numbered motors after that point, were rather installed in Mark-3 models.
If actually so, then that would seem to indicate that your M1-motored Mark-3 was the 249th Mark-3 to receive a M1-motor. _ (But there's probably a more complex story than that.)

[double diamond]

It finally dawned on me the posting that document one of these early M1 Mark 3’s. I thought there were some pics of the entire bike somewhere in this exchange but they seem to have gone missing. But the text accurately describes the model at issue here. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=582&hilit=justin#p3663
Eldert Rademaker has (or at one time had) the highest M1 engine number I’ve ever heard of. This particular example is likely a Mach 1, not a Mark 3 but still the same engine number sequence.

[Eldert]

i still have that Mach1 engine with a high 1800 number . not all Mach 1 engines where put in bikes tho

my friend Peter has a Tecnokart formula IV racecar and it has a Mach1 engine in it with a engine number in the 1500 s




Eldert