Ducati Cucciolo

[UncleMike]

that bike is from the 1980s. there was a revision back then to put shocks on the bikes like they did way back when every one was slinging motors on them.

Yeah, I was going to guess 70s/80s.

[pete]

Definitely looks like a more modern frame... I think if I was to keep this authentic and wanted some suspension up front I'd have to find some girder forks or potentially make some... the forks on this one definitely aren't right for the frame...

I really like how well it's done though, but the engine also looks painted to me which also isn't quite authentic... I don't believe they came out of the factory with paint on anything except the tank and the red Cucciolo on the flywheel...

[pete]

Well the frame hasn't had an easy life...

The headset looks like it was assembled correctly, but it's somewhat of a mess underneath as I expected...











The left leg of the fork has a nice tweak in it:



And I found the left rear stay has a little bit of a tweak that should be easy to straighten without weakening it:





And it looks like the left rear dropout has a bit broken off the bottom:



Fun, fun, fun!

I really need to get into the clean up properly now.

The big thing will be looking at how to do the walnut shell blasting and being able to do it very cheaply... budget is non-existent at the moment.

[tatu]

Thanks for the feedback guys!

Adler: I'm inclined to keep it where it is, as Tim's photo shows they seem to be setup to be mounted low. The two reasons I thought of are as UncleMike said about C of G but also I don't know how well the 60+ year old float valve will hold up with the fuel tank up too high. At least the fuel tap is a standard on/off type...

Now that I've seen it others ways I'm definitely keeping it on the down tube there.

That is definitely an inspirational photo too! If I can get mine that nice it would be awesome! They've obviously welded a couple of brackets on to mount the tank and I wonder if there's any chance of finding some forks like that?

UncleMike: Thanks! And I reckon you're spot on there, even though the tank is small it will definitely be noticeable weight up too high.

A great project, I've been watching it with interest. Just to mention that it doesn't matter how high you mount the tank in respect of the float vlv, a pound of fuel is a pound of fuel, mounting it higher does not make it heavier. I think you're right though, it looks correct lower in the frame
UK used to have a thing called a Cyclemaster made in the '50's a two stroke 26 or 32cc motor fitted inside the rear wheel, designed and built to get the masses moving after the war using DKW technology, I've had two, one as kid at school when the others had the new desirable raleigh choppers and the like, my bike had an engine.

http://classic-motorbikes.net/gallery~cyclemaster-classic-cycles

I do like the four stroke concept.

[rustybronco]

Tatu, he's talking about 'hydrostatic pressure', not the weight of the fluid.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hydrostatic+pressure

hydrostatic pressure (hdr-sttk)
The pressure exerted by a fluid at equilibrium at a given point within the fluid, due to the force of gravity. Hydrostatic pressure increases in proportion to depth measured from the surface because of the increasing weight of fluid exerting downward force from above.

[rustybronco]

http://docs.engineeringtoolbox.com/documents/1632/hydrostatic_pressure_water.png

[tatu]

Tatu, he's talking about 'hydrostatic pressure', not the weight of the fluid.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hydrostatic+pressure

The pressure exerted by a fluid at equilibrium at a given point within the fluid, due to the force of gravity. Hydrostatic pressure increases in proportion to depth measured from the surface because of the increasing weight of fluid exerting downward force from above.


This refers to depth, which I can easily understand and it means the weight of fluid is bearing on a given point within the fluid, meaning that at the surface of the fuel in the tank does not have weight of fuel as it does at the bottom of the tank which is under hydrostatic pressure and therefor more dense. This is what divers have to concern themselves with.
However, this will not apply in this case because the tank holds what it holds and it will not change. The pressure at the end of the fuel tap pipe will be the same at pretty much any height within reason. if the fuel weighs a pound by your foot it will still weigh a pound by your head, the pressure at the pipe will not increase. The amount of pressure at the end of the pipe will be equal to the weigt if fuel in the tank.
Here's one for you, the fuel in your aircraft tank doesn't get heavier the higher you go.

[rustybronco]

Here's one for you, the fuel in your aircraft tank doesn't get heavier the higher you go.

Correct.

But if you were to connect a tube from the fuel tank and run it down to the earth, the pressure exerted at the end of the tube would be greater than the pressure at the bottom of the fuel tank; which is concern for the mounting height of the fuel tank.

[pete]

Thanks Tatu, and yes I've heard of the Cyclemaster, a different way to address the same need I think when cheap transport was required after the war.

Something tells me this won't be practical every day transport once it's finished though

And you were the lucky one, having an engine over having the "cool" new bikes

I was thinking more of Newton's law, was sure I remembered something where the force of gravity increases with distance from the ground... although of course it's been quite a while since I learnt Newton's law so could be completely out of the ball park on that one

I'm sure I recall knowledgeable people on here suggesting not to mount temporary fuel tanks too much higher than the normal fuel tank so it doesn't force the float valve to open incorrectly... again I could be wrong...

At the end of the day I think it just looks better down lower too

[pete]

Correct.

But if you were to connect a tube from the fuel tank and run it down to the earth, the pressure exerted at the end of the tube would be greater than the pressure at the bottom of the fuel tank; which is concern for the mounting height of the fuel tank.

Aaaaah of course! Newton's law of relativity right? Something like that? All this thinking is making my head hurt now...

[tatu]

Correct.

But if you were to connect a tube from the fuel tank and run it down to the earth, the pressure exerted at the end of the tube would be greater than the pressure at the bottom of the fuel tank; which is concern for the mounting height of the fuel tank.

Well now, that would depend on the diameter of the pipe and its potential volume.
Essentially it will remain unchanged as we are back to talking the mass of the fuel and not the hydrostatic pressure.
It will not matter if the tank is 6" off the ground or 6' as far as the pressure at the end of the pipe is concerned as the only difference will be the mass within the tube, and this in this case is insignificant.

[tatu]

Aaaaah of course! Newton's law of relativity right? Something like that? All this thinking is making my head hurt now...

Aye Pete, you're getting it now, Einstiens law of gravity too.

[pete]

Aye Pete, you're getting it now, Einstiens law of gravity too.

Hahahaha yeah that's the one! Told you I could be wrong

I'm sure I can think of some other law of physics to mangle to "prove" some other thing at some point... hahahaha

[tatu]

I'm sure I recall knowledgeable people on here suggesting not to mount temporary fuel tanks too much higher than the normal fuel tank so it doesn't force the float valve to open incorrectly... again I could be wrong...

At the end of the day I think it just looks better down lower too

Nah mate, they're all wrong.
And it does look better lower, when I bought my second Cyclemaster the gug had a manky set of forks for a bike that were meant for the cyclemaster setup, they looked a bit like girder forks and he wanted £300 for them!!
I remember reading an article on line about a fella that rode around Aus on a bike powerd by two Cyclemasters many years ago. One in the front one up back.

[pete]

Nah mate, they're all wrong.
And it does look better lower, when I bought my second Cyclemaster the gug had a manky set of forks for a bike that were meant for the cyclemaster setup, they looked a bit like girder forks and he wanted £300 for them!!
I remember reading an article on line about a fella that rode around Aus on a bike powerd by two Cyclemasters many years ago. One in the front one up back.

300 pounds! Ok that's a little over the top...

I know it was common back then to put girder or similar style suspension up front and use a sprung seat to soften the rear, so I'm hoping if I'm patient I can get a set without blowing my non-existant budget...

I'll have to search for that article! Sounds interesting... if a little mad...