Another Mach 1 question.

[sebouh]

Hello,

I just acquired a very low number Mach 1 00103 from a reputable chronic collector. It is in rough shape but it is still a Mach 1. Looks like it had a old paint job, but the frame (stamped) appears to be original paint but it is black. My question is, has anyone seen black framed Mach 1's? Planning a complete frame up restoration. I have the parts to convert to clip-ons. Electrical looks all screwed up, some sort of rectifier bolted on the side of frame.

Thanks
Sebouh

IMG_2039.JPG

IMG_2038.JPG

IMG_2037.JPG

[GT Wunder]

Congratulations on your new purchase! That recifier appears to be similar to the ones on early 175's / 200's with 40W alternator (can't see picture very well) .

I've never seen/heard of a black framed M1 but have heard of M3's with M1 engines. Stamped frame? Must not be a Berliner machine?

Seems to be mostly there with hard-to-find M1 pieces - do you have the carb and seat? Will be a sweetheart when finished.

BTW, do you still have your other Duke's ( 250 SCR and M3) ?

[ajleone]

Congrats on the find. According to the parts and wiring diagram, the Mach 1 does not have a battery nor rectifier. The PO or someone along the way, might have added these to get brighter night time lighting. Do you see any stamping on the rims ? I am trying figure out if the earlier bike had M Baruzzo rims, or Radelli or what ever was in stock at the Ducati plant.

[Ventodue]

I just acquired a very low number Mach 1 00103 from a reputable chronic collector .. <snip> the frame (stamped) appears to be original paint, but it is black. My question is, has anyone seen black framed Mach 1's?

Whereas convention says that a black frame = Mk 3*, have a read of doublediamond's very informative post, dated 28 April 2011, in this thread. It might explain the fact that the frame is stamped, and also why the engine has an early number.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1686&hilit=mach+1&start=10

* or "MK III", as you prefer ...

[DewCatTea-Bob]

[quote= GT Wunder ...
" That recifier appears to be similar to the ones on early 175's / 200's with 40W alternator "

____ I think it looks a little too large to be one of those units.
It certainly isn't stock, and it's ugly presents should be dealt with !
Such a full-wave rectifier shouldn't even be capable of properly functioning with the stock grounded alt.stator, anyhow.
__ We need to find-out how many wire-leads are housed within the conduit of the alt.stator-cable.



" (can't see picture very well) . "

____ I certainly agree,, (in fact, I find many other posted-pix to be too dark to see much detail at all) !
So I'm including brightened-up versions.


Dukaddy-DUKEs,
-Bob

[DewCatTea-Bob]

[quote= ajleone ...
" According to the parts and wiring diagram, the Mach 1 does not have a battery nor rectifier. "

____ I wonder what (questionable!) source you found that bogus-insinuation within Tony !?
In FACT, the stock 250 Mach-I models employed the very-same entire electrical-system of the 250-Monza/GT models !
So perhaps you were mistakenly rather in actual reference to the electrical-system diagram of a 'Mark III' model.


Dukaddy-DUKEs,
-Bob

[ajleone]

Bob,
Yes, I am mistaken. I just looked and stand corrected. The early scrambler and Mark 3 shared the same battery-less system, as shown in the shop manual. Your are correct, the Mach 1, GT and Monza share the same system, with battery.
Tony

[double diamond]

The rectifier looks like the 200 Motocross rectifier. Puzzling why it’s there since the original rectifier/regulator box is in place in the under-seat position.
Is there a foil ID tag on the steering head or evidence of one ever being there (traces of adhesive on the paint)? The bevel-heaven site lists the frame number for this motorcycle (engine #DM250-00103) as DM250*85919*IGM-1985-OM. Is this correct?
I’ve never seen an original Mach 1 with a black frame but there may be another explanation.

[DewCatTea-Bob]

____ I regret that it's been so long for me to finally get-around to placing this earlier intended post !
Originally I had decided to let it wait just a day or two in expectation of Sebouh getting back to catching-up with some posed questions for him to get answered,, but since he never-yet did so, this thread thusly never got rebounded back to the top-side forum-page location with any new activity to be made aware of. _ So-thus I've not kept this thread in mind on a front-burner,, but since there hasn't been anything-else cooking for the past couple days on the forum, I figure I may as well get-around to tending to this thread.



[quote= double diamond ...,
" The rectifier looks like the 200 Motocross rectifier. Puzzling why it’s there since the original rectifier/regulator box is in place in the under-seat position. "

____ I'd find it highly interesting to learn exactly how that out of place rectifier has been particularly connected-up to whatever wiring it's been specifically wired-up to ! _ That way, I could then figure-out it's specifically intended purpose (if indeed the personnel who installed that added rectifier actually had any valid idea of what they were actually trying to get accomplished).
Cuz whenever I-myself ever acquired a Duke with odd wiring-work,, I'd thoroughly investigate it so as to determine whether the bike had been owned by a dimwit-type or a rather thoughtful-PO, (though unfortunately, most-often it wasn't the preferred-type of PO !).
__ Anyhow,, even with the stock regulator-box correctly installed and fully functioning as factory-intended (with a factory-stock alternator), I can still think of a reason for the installation of such an extra rectifier ! ...
The stock rectifier-circuits (within the regulator-box) only provide just the positive-output of the alternator for the neg.ground charging-system, (and ignores the available negative power-outputs) ! _ So if someone cared to harness any of that otherwise ignored alt.power for powering some-odd pos.ground load of some sort, then they could possibly use an added pair of extra rectifier-valves to catch & distribute the negative-to-ground power (that's normally produced by the alternator).
So maybe that's what a previous PO was trying to accomplish in this-case we see presented here. _ But there'd then also have to be an added load of some sort that doesn't run-off the positive-DC.power of the battery !
__ Just a thought of a valid-reason for possibly why the extra rectifier was added.
But chances are greater that the mod.perp was only merely bright enough to think that he was changing the charging-system over-to full-wave rectification (from the stock half-wave circuitry), not realizing that that's really not possible, (as he probably didn't realize that the alt.stator-circuits are grounded).
So this matter is certainly deserving of more scrutiny, (just as a new-owner ought be interested to learn whether his acquired Duke had gotten proper oil-changes) !


Hopeful-Cheers,
-Bob

[sebouh]

Hello,

I have been busy with work and haven't been able to give this bike the attention it desires. But I did do some disassembly to make a pile parts to go to polisher and the chromer. Gonna send the engine down to John Walsh to figure it out.

Now to answer the questions so far.
1. Yes frame is stamped. (probably not a berliner)
2. No carb (I did acquire a 29 off of fleabay), also missing M1 seat. (if anyone has one in there back pocket, let me know)
3. Yes I also have 2 scramblers, a 250GT, a 250 Mark3. My wife says I am done after this.
4. NO sign of foil tag.
5. Yes this is the bike listed from Bevelheaven.
6. Rims are M Baruzzo. Date on the Forks is 27-4-64
7. Fender are narrower than my Mark3. Also the front edge of the front fender is rolled over.
8. Cable coming out of case has only two wires in it.
Speedo goes to 100mph

In need of a big tach and clip-ons.
So whether it is an early MKIII or a Mach 1, it is gonna end up an Mach 1.

Thanks,
Sebouh

mach1fork.JPG

mach1elect2.JPG

mach1elect3.JPG

mach1 elect1.jpg