Ducati ID Info Help - The Basics

[West Coast Mags]

Hello,

First post just joined, I recently acquired what I was told is a 1969 Ducati 350 Sebring in "barn find" condition. In the 1970's it was kind of cafe converted using a big fiberglass one-piece tank seat assembly. From my research thus far it looks as though the tank, seat, front fender are the only items changed, its missing the tool box and a few minor items. I've been starting to research parts and models but have not been able to answer a few questions that are probably pretty basic.

Can someone explain the difference between "narrow case" and "wide case" and perhaps which models fell under each classification.

Are there any resources about parts interchangeablility between models? Or is it for the most part - narrow case parts among narrow case bikes, large case parts among large case bikes?

[DewCatTea-Bob]

" First post just joined,"

____ Welcome as our newest listed-member !


" Can someone explain the difference between "narrow case" and "wide case" and perhaps which models fell under each classification. "

____ Basically, all Duke-models factory-constructed after early 1967 are of the 'WideCase' type, due to the motors then being finally updated with the crankshaft stretched-out -(widened) for the 250 (& larger displacements), which led to other related motor-parts also needing to be widened, to match. _ Along with that, (for an independent reason) the rear motor-mounts were also widened, which is the most popular difference used to discern w-c from n-c motors. _ That frame mounting difference lead to the 'deck' behind the cylinder to be more notable (as a deck-like area, which the n-c motor-case didn't really seem to have), and in fact that difference was the reason for why wide-case motors were first referred to as "Wide-Deck" models (back before the WideCase-name became more widespread).
On that deck-area (of w-c motors only), there's an added receptor-mount/tab (intended for the screw-adjuster on a w-c clutch-cable), molded-on as part of the (right-side) motor-case, along with a slotted-opening (for the transmission's clutch-arm/lever). _ Both added features of which are not found on the n-c type motor-case ! - As the n-c clutch-cable neatly disappears into the equivalent deck-area of the n-c motor-case, behind the cyl.jug-base.


" Are there any resources about parts interchangeablility between models? "

____ Well other than myself, I'm not really aware of any such resources (since I myself haven't really needed any), but here at this w.site is most likely your best source for such info !
__ BTW, your pic.view of your Duke shows too darkly (on my monitor) for me to tell much about it but, I do note that it appears to have w-c.type scrambler-forks, which sheds doubt that your Duke was actually a "Sebring" model.
And I must say, that except for the forks & front-fender, your Duke is much as I myself might've wished to build ! _ (As it sort-of looks kind-of cool.)


" Or is it for the most part - narrow case parts among narrow case bikes, large case parts among large case bikes? "

____ No not really, most engine-parts are still interchangeable between narrow-case & wide-case motors. _ Also many non-motor-parts are also interchangeable between w-c & n-c models, and many differences are mainly due to updating & newer designs of parts as the years passed (from the old n-c days to the newer w-c days), thus consequently many so-called 'WideCase parts' were only stock on WideCase-models (even though many w-c.type-parts* could still be fitted to narrow-case models as well, [* such as DESMO-heads & SquareSlide-carbs, w-c.type fork-sets & fenders & gas-tanks, etc.] ).
__ I myself have probably put n-c.type-parts on w-c DUKEs & w-c.type-parts on n-c DUKEs, as many times as anyone else ever has.
Also, I always try to separate/distinguish & refer to wide-case parts which will only fit just w-c models, as 'w-c.parts',, whilst other wide-case parts which will also fit/work on n-c models as well, are intended to be referred to as 'w-c.type-parts'.
Unfortunately, most others usually fail to make any kind of distinction-note concerning that difference.


Dukaddy-DUKEs,
DCT-Bob

[West Coast Mags]

Thanks for the info and for covering the narrow case / wide case question. You mentioned that you thought the forks might be from a scrambler, do you know if there is anything I can look for to confirm? I did recieve a 1977 Arizona title with the bike and it is just listed as 1969 Ducati M/C. Are there any other identifying marks, numbers etc. that would help me determine what model it is?

Also, the bike currently has two levers on the left hand control: clutch and cylinder decompression, and on the right side it has the throttle and front brake. There doesn't seem to be any evidence of a choke control or cable, does this help narrow it to a specific model?

Thanks - Jim

[JimF]

Wow! I've never seen anything like that one-piece tank/seat assembly on a Ducati single. Clearly it looks to have been commercially made - perhaps for another brand of bike but it sure fits the Ducati well enough. If it was a commercially made after-market part specifically for a Ducati single then it may be the only survivor.

Will you continue to use it? Or will you look for a separate seat and tank? If you decide against using the one-piece tank-seat don't put it in the dumpster - it's a relic worth preserving.

Generally speaking I think the narrow case body work is somewhat interchangeable between models, probably more so from narrow case bikes made in the 1960s. I defer to Bob on that. But I would say that if you see a tank on eBay and you buy it, and it turns out it doesn't fit, there's a good chance you can put the tank right back on eBay and recover your money so as to buy the next tank you want to try. Same with the seat and fenders etc. of course.

I see you have clip-ons. If those are the Ducati clip-ons from the era those are worth a pretty penny!

Thanks for sharing the photo - welcome to the forum.

Jim

[DewCatTea-Bob]

" You mentioned that you thought the forks might be from a scrambler, do you know if there is anything I can look for to confirm? "

____ Yes, does the headlamp-shell have an ignition-switch on it's left-side side (as opposed to top left-side) ?
Also is the front-wheel 19-inch (as it seems to appear to be), or 18-in.?


" Are there any other identifying marks, numbers etc. that would help me determine what model it is? "

____ Yes, what is it's motor-number ? _ Can you post a close-up picture of the carb that's mounted on it ? _ And also a picture which shows the rear frame-loop (covering the rear-fender bracket-mount area), from an angle that's NOT taken from DIRECTLY behind, yet also somewhat below the lower-level of the seat's body-work ?
Also, can you note how many wire-leads protrude-out from the black-conduit of the alternator-cable (which exits the motor-case near the kick-starter), and what the colors of those wires are ?


" There doesn't seem to be any evidence of a choke control or cable, does this help narrow it to a specific model? "

____ No, but we should have a better idea of exactly what model it is, after I get your answers to most of the above.


Hopeful-Cheers,
-Bob

[wcorey]

This is an interesting one, I can see a possible reason why the photo is titled 'buggy', certainly has the feel of one of those 60's dune buggy kits, lol.
I took the liberty of enlarging and contrasting the photo as the original has enough resolution to show more detail as such.

Bob, the photo as viewed on my browser (mozilla) is fairly bright and shows a lot of detail, if it's looking too dark for you, you might want to try it on a different browser or turn up your monitor brightness settings.

Since this site cuts off large photos, I did it in two sections...






It appears that the rear frame loop is flat, indicating of course non-scrambler.

Bill

[DewCatTea-Bob]

" Bob, the photo as viewed on my browser (mozilla) is fairly bright and shows a lot of detail, if it's looking too dark for you, you might want to try it on a different browser or turn up your monitor brightness settings. "

____ Thanks for the effort Bill !
__ I use Firefox as well since InternetExplorer has some particular problems I wish to avoid. _ And in the past I have noticed that Firefox shows pix notably darker than IE.!
But I've long since learned to just go-ahead & download all pix which I have any need to see better, (thus taking the browser out of the picture) !
Last-month I learned that my dark/brightness-issue is likely due to my current PC-OS & monitor combo, (which has already had all possible adjustment ranges fully explored), because I have another PC & monitor (at my own house, not here at my apartment), of which that monitor let's me see ALL pix just fine ! _ Whereas this monitor here has trouble with the pic.lighting, only on about 2 of 3 pictures shown on it, (either by w.net OR from within the PC), but,
but I only get this pic.lighting problem when this monitor is used with a PC which has XP-Pro ! - If this monitor is connected to my PC with Win.2000, then this monitor shows ALL pix with normal contrast-range ! _ From further experimenting, I've actually determined that it seems my monitor & the XP-Pro won't work together to display MOST pix correctly lightened ! - (I know the PC itself is definitely not the cause of my too-dark pix-issue !)
__ You've now inspired an idea to try downloading affected pix through IE. (instead of Ff), (although I've never thought that doing that could possibly make any difference, before).
I'll post the results next, soon.


Tillater,
-Bob

UPDATE: - It's now later and I'm back with strange/unexpected results ! ...
Concerning Firefox vs. In.Ex browser picture-downloading, there IS indeed an unexpected difference !! ...
While downloading -(copying) Jim's original picture either through Firefox or IE, made no difference, (both providing a 75KB-Jpeg as expected),
the enlarged-versions (provided by Bill) were NOT copied the same (as would otherwise have been expected,, downloaded through the two different browsers) !
When I got Bill's pix through Firefox, I received Jpeg.pix of 173 & 134KB,, but when I got the very same two pix through IE., I instead received Bitmap.pix of 1929 & 1619KB.
__ Anyhow, they still made no difference shown on my monitor, as ALL are still as dark as the original !!
I'll post & label 3 of them for Bill & others to compare & see if THEY can notice any difference here.

____ Of course this stuff is WAY-off this thread-topic, but I think it's interesting enough to keep-up for 36-hours or so. _ Just keep in mind that after that, all posts with the same title as I've given this one, will be deleted (after time has past to copy any info.data),, so please keep any stuff directly related to this off-topic, posted separately from any Duke-related material.


Wacky-Cheers,
-Bob

Further UPDATE: - I've tried both and those bmp.pix were not allowed to be uploaded here !
____ I've now edited this entire post, so now's the best time for any further comments on any of this stuff.
__ Thanks AHOT for any further suggestions !


Hopeful-Cheers,
-Bob

[West Coast Mags]

Glad to see that this old bird has generated some interest and I really appreciate everyones posts and efforts to help with the project. I have not taken the tankseat off yet but will let everyone know if there are any numbers or casting info, I did some searches and could not find anything with this tank, but suspect that it was a product of the fiberglass happy 1970s. I plan to keep it, though I am desiring more of a traditional look. The bars are not clips though they look like it the photo but rather are clubmans turned way down to the point that they are resting on the triple tree neck, I'll definately do something about that. There is no ignition switch on the headlight and it does not look like it has a provision for one that I remember, rather the ignition switch has been relocated to the rear of the seat on the right side. Since there has been some recent interest I'll work on posting up additional photos and will investigate the things to look at that everyone has sugguested. Many Thanks from the Ducati Rookie!

[Jordan]

Another quick way to ID a Ducati single is to see if the sump is long from front to back (full length of engine for w/c) or short (about half way for n/c).

If you get hold of parts lists, the numbers let you know interchangeability, as they are carried over from model to model.

Jordan

[DewCatTea-Bob]

" If you get hold of parts lists, the numbers let you know interchangeability, as they are carried over from model to model. "

____ That's right ! _ And the prefix-number" '0400' (such as in 0400.47.490) is a good example, as that original 175-model prefix-# has carried-forth to even the L-twins !


Dukaddy-DUKEs,
-Bob