Amazing what can be found....

[Mike52]

Someone's ears will be burning right about now

He obviously hasnt spotted it yet Paul.....lets see how long it takes.

Is this your Dad's old bike IT400C?

Hmmm, between mainline, Davey Crocket and Jock, I'm starting to think it's "Pick On Tony Day"...   :'(   :'(
Either that or you 3 think I may be a little obsessive about IT400C's.....   
Just because I own 5 of them doesn't mean I have a problem!        (although I will if my missus reads this and sees how many..    )

Did you miss this one Tony  How come no one,s bidding ?
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/YAMAHA-250-84MODEL-NOT-DT-KX-RM-YZ-VMX-PARTS-/150611697512?pt=AU_Motorcycles&hash=item2311281f68

[Davey Crocket]

Right on both occasions Tony......the first "blue poo"!!

[IT400C]

Can't really argue, can i...........   

[SPANISH ARMADA]

it400c can u tell me just for the record and a couple of others i have spoke to how can u tell from those photos that the rear shock is  wrong for that bike . After all the comments of whats right and wrong on that bike might as well let it go to where it was headed sims metal i thought a bike saved is a bike saved after all qld only got 6 bikes when new  is that correct .Next time at least return a personal  message i sent u to see whether or not you where interested after u sent one to me chasing me in case i was in qld and it could have been your fathers engine which i offered to look at if u sent me the numbers which u did not so it still could be but unlikley ebay here it comes  or flat track engine and simmy can have the rest.

[IT400C]

ok - for a start the forks are leading axle with too much travel - IT400C had inline forks standard.  I just guessed they were IT400D-E-F forks as they were a similar leading axle design, and the bike has an IT400D-E-F front guard and headlight on it.

with the rear suspension, again too much space between the tyre and rear guard.  Standard it had 7" of travel.  It could be a standard shock with the mounting point moved from up near the steering head to further back on the frame, but since it has later IT forks it just seemed likely it had a later IT shock too.  I could be wrong about that though.  In the engine close up photo you can just see the shock spring further back than is standard.

But as I said, it's still a good basis for a resto.   

[Davey Crocket]

The shock might be correct as I think I can see the "bowell" at the rear, but it sits way to high...maybe the shock isnt connected at the front?....look like D forks....maybe a few saveable parts on that....they must be devil bikes those C's...only 20 came to Aussie and it looks like there still all around somewhere....waiting to be found.

[IT400C]

I'm pretty sure more than 20 came to Oz now - there may have only been 20 in early 1976 (6 in QLD, maybe 7 in NSW, and 7 in Vic), but I think there was a second batch brought in to NSW, Vic, SA, WA later in the year.

The first batch seems to have been all around the 510-203100 engine numbers, but there is also another group of IT400C's out there with engine numbers around 510-205000.

So I think there must have been one lot came in in Jan/Feb 76 (the 20 I remember hearing about), and another batch later in the year.

[IT400C]

The first batch (around the 510-203100 engine numbers) have a slightly different left fork leg casting than the second batch (around 510-205000).

SIDE ON - Earlier Type on the right, Later Type on the left:


FRONT ON - Earlier Type on the left, Later Type on the right:


(Sorry for the lack of focus - wasn't easy holding the second fork leg up with my left hand while trying to take a photo with my right....     )

[IT400C]

Hmmm, between mainline, Davey Crocket and Jock, I'm starting to think it's "Pick On Tony Day"...   :'(   :'(

Either that or you 3 think I may be a little obsessive about IT400C's.....   

Just because I own 5 of them doesn't mean I have a problem!        (although I will if my missus reads this and sees how many..    )

Shit - after that last post about the forks (and the engine number post too I suppose) I've just realised that I really do have a problem, don't I?   :'(

[cheapracer]

Shit - I've just realised that I really do have a problem, don't I?   :'(

Nah Mate, not at all.

Oh, on the post 510-203100 models I was wondering if the clutch cable front downtube zip-ties had 73 or 78 teeth?

[IT400C]

   73 of course!   

 

[cheapracer]

  73 of course!   

Well played Sir!