Otis Chandler "1907" Harley in Fall Issue

[jurassic]

1908

so the numbers on the factory 1908 do jive with parhams numbers,as far as being past 2176.i have pictures of demilles 1908 engine ,that is original,and its numbers are 2113.but the cylinder on that engine has all the fins,unlike parhams 2177and harleys 2194.harleys "1906" is an obvious cobb job but the cylinder number and case number match,2130,and it also has all the fins on the cylinder.so it appears somewhere between 2130,and 2177 harley lessened the number of fins on their cylinder.and so far is 2194 the latest number?the close up pictures of harleys 2194 show that the bike is nearly perfect,everything fits perfect ,and lines up nice.and the consistency of the hardware is very OEM.from the pictures ,i can say, if it is original it is even nicer than 2037.and if it is original it proves that harley was making their own forks prior to 1909,which would also jive with the 1908 catalog boasting a stronger ,or sturdier fork.

[jurassic]

fords bike

sorry ,i too had to go back and study this thread,but i have forgot about 2278 at the ford museum.is it so far the latest serial number we have?i notice it too has the later style cylinder with less fins.it is hard to tell but the fork also looks a bit different.

[silentgreyfello]

1959 photo

Sorry if someone has already mentioned this, but the seats on the 1908 through 1911 are all incorrect in the 1959 photo! (no nose springs). I think they are either Troxel Eagles or Troxel #1's, which are for 1912 and later HD's. Also, look at the front wheel on the 1909 twin... it is a 26". In later photos of the bike, they changed the wheel to the correct size.

[silentgreyfello]

forks

I know Harley advertised a sturdier fork for 1908. Question I have is this: Did they mean the newer style Sager fork, or a fork of their own? Here is Walter (see photo) in 1907 with the earlier Sager. To my knowlege, there is only one remaining Harley with this fork, though I saw an Excelsior years ago with one as well. Notice that the complete front leg is nickel plated. Also, there is not any room for top springs in the front leg, just lower springs. It was probably a little rough (and noisy) on the way back up! Sager added dampening springs on the top in the next version, as well as changed the mounting configuration. The flat bent plate that connected the rear legs to the front was probably weak, hence the change to castings.

[silentgreyfello]

carbs

Changing the subject a bit here, but I got to looking at photos of some of the original bikes. It struck me as odd that there isn't a logical pattern on the numbering of the carbs relative to the motor numbers. In fact, the carb numbers are smaller as the motor numbers get larger. Unfortunately, I didn't take pix of the carbs on some of the bikes.

For example:
Bonger/Cole: Motor 2037, Carb 899
Caladona/Chandler: Motor 2042, Carb 864
Regis/Parham: Motor 2177, carb 678
Linsday: early motor NO VIN, carb 2034

Anybody know what the carb numbers are for the HD 2130 and 2194 bikes are , or the Ford museum bike 2278?

[HarleyCreation]

Re: missing link

Originally posted by jurassic
WOW,thank you to our friends in germany.a picture is worth a thousand words.i agree with most of the thought that the line up strap tanks are mostly made up,but i'll bet anybody even money that the 1908 is an original paint virgin.this bike would be easily come by for sure in 1919,and in this condition.we all know how harley "restored" the earlier models.quite poorly.they would never have been able to restore the 1908 to look like that,nor could they today.herb,surely you examined this bike in your research?or at least documented the serial number?this bike is the real deal ,and could tell us volumes.and even if this bike were "pieced together junk",does the serial number on the cylinder match the cases?.if so then at least the engine is correct.and the cylinder is most definatly of the latest strap tank style ,as is the cylinder on parhams 1908,serial number 2177.we all know that the 1909 cylinder exhaust port is completely different.this is a strap tank cylinder that looks like a 1909.chasing the paper trail is fine ,but chasing the parts trail,and the evolution of existing "real" parts is the only way to truely figure out this riddle.whether the parts be a single cylinder ,a case or frame ,or a whole cobbled up bike,every part tells a story.the designers went forward,not backward,and these small changes can still be observed in their work.PLEASE DOES ANYONE HAVE THE SERIAL NUMBER TO THIS 1908 MOTORCYCLE.we are very close to figuring this out.

Sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you were willing to accept that all the Factory strap-tank collection bikes are fundamentally correct. Clearly they are not all equal with regard to their authenticity (altho none were retained from original production but acquired in/after 1919).

The 1908 is without question the best of the lot. While the 1907 seems to have a '07 engine the fork(?) and other parts appear wrong. The '06 with its high number motor seems way off mark. SNO#1 & SNO#2 seem somewhat better than the '06 but still a mixture of parts.

And no, actually I never did look very closely at the Factory collection 1908. It was too new and seemed right anyway. I was busy cracking the Harley origin years mess and figuring out what happened and didn't happen in the years between 1901 and 1905 to think much about 1908. By then everything seemed solved!

As a historian I know the bigger picture: events, models, people, dates, etc., but will gladly learn from you guys who know the details about the iron better than I do. Absolutely!

Do you other guys agree that the 1908 is a "virgin"? That would be very good to know.

I think you saw it already, but the SN on the Factory 1908 is 2194. I'm not certain if the numbers match cylinder/case, but I think they probably do.

Can you restate the problem about the cylinder and the fork? That stuff we may be able to puzzle out.

Unfortunately I don't have anything on carb numbers that silentgreyfellow asked about.

[HarleyCreation]

Thanks to Fritz, here's a cropped enlargement of the Factory 1906-1907-1908 showing their cylinders.

Notice that the "1906" (1908 motor?) (#2130) has finning way down the cylinder while the 1908 (#2194) fins stop higher up on the cylinder. The 1907 has low down finning too, altho it doesn't show up as well in this photo.

I think this is cylinder problem that Jurassic was talking about, right?

There is one published source that explains this discrepency of two cylinder types at this time. But since Earl first brought it to my attention I hate to steal his thunder and will let him reveal it unless somebody else finds it first!

[HarleyCreation]

Re: Woodshed Winter 1929

Originally posted by Harleyson's

You can see the background in this 1929 Woodshed pix is no longer the Davidson family backyard, but a factory building which is the same background seen in the staged pix of the single and the guy kneeling beside it.

[jurassic]

08's

so just for referance,does anyone have pics of harleys"1907",and the serial numbers.so we can put it in line with the other serial numbers we have.

[HarleyCreation]

I've been looking closely at the "virgin" 1908 in the Factory collection and then it hit me.

If it's a virgin then how come it's mated to 1909 Model forks?

Oops!

That's what I see when I compare the 1908 Factory Collection bike's forks to period photos, literature, and descriptions. The 1907, 1908, and 1909 models all had distinct spring-type forks of different patterns. Yet in Fritz's picture (below) the 1908 bike seems to be wearing the 1909 type forks.

In addition, the 1907 Collection bike seems to be wearing 1908 forks. I think that's been mentioned before. The original 1907 Sager fork was too light for a motorcycle and didn't stand up. I believe the 1908 model fork was Bill Harley's own updated design.

Maybe something broke on the 1908 "virgin" too.

[Earl]

Originally posted by HarleyCreation
I've been looking closely at the "virgin" 1908 in the Factory collection and then it hit me.

If it's a virgin then how come it's mated to 1909 Model forks?

Oops!

That's what I see when I compare the 1908 Factory Collection bike's forks to period photos, literature, and descriptions. The 1907, 1908, and 1909 models all had distinct spring-type forks of different patterns. Yet in Fritz's picture (below) the 1908 bike seems to be wearing the 1909 type forks.

In addition, the 1907 Collection bike seems to be wearing 1908 forks. I think that's been mentioned before. The original 1907 Sager fork was too light for a motorcycle and didn't stand up. I believe the 1908 model fork was Bill Harley's own updated design.

Maybe something broke on the 1908 "virgin" too.

I think you've got it HarleyCreation.
And you can see it clearly from the line-up photo, as you pointed out.

The 1909 is wearing 1909 forks.
The 1908 is wearing 1909 forks.
The 1907 is wearing 1908 forks.

And go back and look at the HenryFord "1907" which is really a 1908, according to engine number and other 1908 model features. It too is wearing a 1909 style fork. The 1908 frame just doesn't sit right with the later forks.

[HarleyCreation]

Get Your Funhouse Hall of Mirrors Tickets Here!

Please allow me to present the following theory....

Remember how this thread began with the Otis Chandler Auction Harley dubbed a "1907" but that we determined was actually a 1908 model?

Same thing with a nice replica eBay Harley dubbed a "1907" but that we also determined was equipped like a 1908?

Now Earl has also pointed out that the Henry Ford Museum "1907" also shows mostly 1908 features.

I will now offer a scenario how those mistaken identity "1907" (actually 1908) bikes came to be.

The guys involved (you know who you are) viewed the Factory Collection strap-tank models as examples of Authentic Original Gospel Truth Production when actually they were entering a Funhouse Hall of Mirrors and fell into a trap set on quicksand.

They compared their bikes to the Factory strap-tank jobs and saw the following:

The fork on the Factory 1908 was like the fork on the Factory 1909 model, while their fork was like the fork on the Factory 1907 model.

Since they naturally assumed the Factory collection bikes were correct, they might have concluded by fork comparison alone that their bikes were 1907 models. But in addition, the 1907 Factory bike also has a muffler cut-out, ribbed fenders, and rounded tanks just like their bikes did. With all that evidence they naturally concluded their machines had to be "1907" models too. Since we all stand in "awe" of the Factory collection who wouldn't naturally conclude that?

On this thread, however, we have demonstrated that the Factory "1907" is actually equipped like a 1908. Altho its motor (18xx) may fall in the 1907 range (under 2000?), its rounded tanks, muffler cut-out, ribbed fenders, and fork are all distinct 1908 model features.

Now we can also add another parts bike boo-boo in the Factory collection with the 1908 "virgin" who ain't as pure as she first appears with regard to her fork, which is a 1909 pattern fork instead of the correct 1908 type fork which we see plastered instead on the 1907 Factory collection bike!

This Thread is hauntingly similar to what we experienced breaking through the morass of confusion surrounding Harley's origin events and first bikes while researching and writing At the Creation. In a parallel universe deja vu kind of way the early Factory Collection bikes are just as badly messed up as Harley's early history!

Before we can arrive at the truth we have to throw out everything we previously believed was correct and start over from square one. With the Factory Collection early strap-tank SNO jobs thru 1908 model we KNOW for a FACT that they are NOT examples of original correct production but instead are "parts bikes" of varying degrees acquired/assembled after 1919 and therefore they cannot be trusted unless you like walking around with a bear-trap attached to your leg while sinking into quicksand.

Jurassic is right: this is becoming clear!

[jurassic]

harley fork

the fork on 2194 is exactly the piont i am trying to make.we know this fork was of the harley design ,not sager,and it was the same fork on number 2500,which we assume is the first 1909 .the forks on harleys 1907 and 2037 and 2042 are in fact sager forks,not the same as the sager fork in the 1907 catalog.this earlier type sager fork was actually an attachment to the rigid fork that was already being utilized on the earlier harley bikes.much of the hardware ,rockers ,shape and design of the sager attachment and the sager fork are the same.so for harley to have designed the fork on 2037 and 2042 ,and harleys 1907 would have been a patent infringment on sagers design.sager , which was also selling forks to yale ,possibly excelsior and other companies as well,is easy to spot from its certain design implements..so harley , at some piont, made their own front fork {ie 1909 fork},it did not look like the sager ,but it was pretty much the same design.no patent problems.so all i am saying is if all 1909's ,after number 2500 had this harley designed copy of the sager fork,then why would they wait till january to put it into use on their product .from the numbers we have ,it appears one of the latest strap tanks{2194} is equipped with this harley designed fork.2278 's fork also looks later ,but can not be counted on because this bike has many incorrect and inconsistent issues{ie. paint, carb,etc.},cobb job .which brings me back to 2194,i know pictures can be decieving,and i would love to inspect this bike up close,but it appears that the patina on the machine is very consistent from the frame to the fork,the rims ,the fenders,etc.the best indicator is the pinnstriping,it totally matches all the way across.i have studied many original paint harley's for many years,including 2037,and this striping is dead nut in its quality,positioning,and fading.just say they did mock this bike together at some piont after 1919,and painted it and striped it perfectly,did they then hop on it and put a few thousand miles on it.because every corner of 2194 has signs of even wear,oil leaks,scratches,and staining,that none of the other collection bike strap tanks have.is it possible in there search for the earlier bikes they scored one beauty in five.possibly why they never changed it from the day they got it?is it possible that some of the very last strap tanks used the harley designed fork and not the sager fork?also weighing on my mind is the question,did the strap tanks actually end at number 2499?we have motor only evidence of 2278.not far away from 2499.its awfully convienent that they would end at a nice round number such as 2500.they certainly did not start at 0001,because they did not start numbering them till the 8 bolt case was introduced{ie 1907 and 1908?},for such a small fledgling company to produce 2500 bikes in 2 years seems hard to grasp,even if they started counting in 1904 .especially since the earliest number we have heard of is in the 1800's,or is there a lower number??we all know about harleys way of beginning their later model years with 1000 as the first number.so what i have been thinking about lately is kind of like an algebra question.in 1907 ,with X amount of workers,in a shop the size of X,with around 300 days{1 year minus sundays and holidays},how many motorcycles could they produce.and the same question for 1908.with this problem solved and the existing serial numbers we may figure it out a bit.of course this is all just questions i am asking ,because early harleys are a passion and i would like to know as much about them as possible.they dont call it the funhouse for nothing.

[jurassic]

cobb jobs.

CASE IN POINT: last weekend i drove to nebraska and picked up the most hideous cobbled up junk 1947 knucklehead chopper you've ever seen.an unworthy cobb job to be sure.the fork is off of a 1979 superglide,the tanks are off of a 1982 lowrider.the rear wheel is off of a 1984 sportster .the rear fender is a front fender off of a 41 to 46 springer.the chain guard is fabricated and not OEM.the cam cover is off of a 1939 knuck and the vin numbers have been restamped.oh,and its not original paint.how do i know all of this? from years of studying harley davidson parts from all different years and models,noticing how they evolve and interchange with each other.and getting an overall feel for how this particular factory does or does not go about manufacturing certain components.so,do i totally disregard this 1947 pile of junk,or do i revel in the crazy and insane way all these parts from many different harleys came together to form such an ugly conglomeration.i chose to study each part individually to assess its origins,and then disregard what was not correct.for the purposes of our discussion today,and given the overall rarity of pre 1909 harley parts,i would say that the line up of junk pre 1909 harley parts in the factory may yet be able to tell us something.given an informed and educated study.

[jurassic]

assumptions

i must admit that i have made many assumptions here.i have assumed that everyone knows what a sager fork looks like,by looking at the other makes that employ the sager fork and the numerous sager ads littering the early cycle magazines.i am also assuming that everyone can tell the difference between an original paint bike and an older restoration and a cobb job.i am also assuming everyone has the common sense to know that a factory that is producing a product and continually improving and upgrading that product would not wait till jan. 1st to implement these upgrades.i am also assuming that everyone knows that a factory usually puts out its catalog at the beginning of the year or even possibly a few months prior to that year,and that this catalog is published using the current product,not taking into account the variuos upgrades that will happen throughout that year.i am also assuming that someone who wrote an entire book on this subject without taking these and other mechanical and design factors into account would not be too keen on opposing points of view,and would crow on and on about funhouses,alternate universes,quicksand,beartraps,and god knows what instead of simply following the parts trail.i am also assuming the author of said book would want to put his hard gathered ,precious documentation to the test by employing an educated authority on early harley design to inspect,study and document all the vehicles in question that are still in existence today,and whose locations are well known. i am not assuming all the people in this discussion{you know who you are}should know everything about every part on every model from 1905 to 1985.but there are people in this world that do,quite a few actually.unfortunatly most of these people are too busy actually working on pre-historic harleys to take the time to enter into our discussion.i am sorry i have made all these assumptions