Otis Chandler "1907" Harley in Fall Issue

[silentgreyfello]

Sager forks

For what it's worth... I count at least three different forks that Sager produced...

1. An attachment to hook up to an existing rigid fork for both bicycles and motorcycle. This fork had a brace that attached to the outside of the rigid legs. There is a photo on p. 104 of "At the Creation". I personally have never seen pix of this on a motorcycle.

2. The Sager fork that was used on the bike Walter is sitting on in "early" 1907. The only reason I say early is that I have an 11x14 photo from the original glass negative. In the photo, you can see the flowers in the grass in bloom. I guess the only thing that is for sure is that it is spring... I'll let others argue the year. This fork is not an attachment... the connection from the underside of the triple plates to the front leg is welded onto the bottom of the triple plates. It appears to be a poor and weak design. There is an orig paint bike in the midwest that I believe (now) to be a 1907 that has this fork. It's motor number is 1981. It has the smooth fenders, no exhaust cutout, and fuel filler in, gasp, the front with rounded edges! And it ain't no cob job near as I could tell.

3. The third style sager is the most commonly seen (like 2037 and 2042 have. When did they change to this style? 1907, mid 1907, or 1908. I am surmising it was mid-1907, but of course I am a little too young to actually have been there.

I understand Jurrassic's point that Harley may have developed their own fork sometime in 1908 and started using it as soon as it was done. 2177 has the later Sager fork, 2194 has the Harley fork. It is possible that the change was made in between these two bikes. The share the "less fins on cylinder" and the toolbox.

Fascinating stuff!

[HarleyCreation]

Some VERY significant material has been posted here recently but I need to mull it over and to look up some stuff.

But I do wish to apologize to anyone whose feelings or toes I might have stepped on. (That includes anybody from the Harley Factory who might be reading this.) It's just that it's such a fun and interesting subject that sometimes I do get carried away in my enthusiasm trying to make a point while having fun doing it.

I believe we are all on the same side here trying to discover the truth about the early years and bikes of Harley-Davidson. Do I have the full story down to the last detail? Of course not. Does anybody? I doubt that too. The record is fragmentary and already messed up by past tampering and the passage of so much time. We all come from different viewpoints and have our own areas of expertise. Together, however, I think we make a good team and are making strides forward. Will we always agree? That's doubtful too. Testing our assumptions and current body of knowledge is part of the game.

Please don't take the bear-trap jokes personally anybody because, believe me, my leg is STILL SORE from the one that I was lugging around for so many years!

None of us alive today are responsible for the inaccurate record surrounding Harley's early years. That bad record began around 1908 with regard to pushing back the first year of production from 1905 to 1903 (or even 1902 or 1901!)

With regard to the strap-tank Collection bikes we can first document them by photos made in 1924 as I will soon demonstrate on this thread. And in case anybody thinks I'm coming down too hard on our heroes I'll repeat what I have stated before: "Early Harley-Davidson wasn't writing history, they were too busy making it!"

[Earl]

Re: carbs

Originally posted by silentgreyfello
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?

jschultz reports that the HenryFordMuseum 1908 bike has a Schebler carb. He posted that on another thread.

[Earl]

Re: Henry Ford Museum

Originally posted by Chuck#1848
Was there ever any reply from the Henry Ford Museum on that model on display in the museum?

They also got a nice looking Red Knuckle Head Sidecar Rig there to!

No reply from the Henry Ford Museum regarding their strap-tank Harley. I will try to contact them again by email and follow up with a phone call. Thanks for reminding me.

[Earl]

Originally posted by HarleyCreation


So you think that bike on page 11 in At the Creation is SNO#1?

Interesting theory!

It sort of makes sense and here's why...

The photo on page 11 appears to be an early shot of a rigid fork strap-tank Harley in front of the Woodshed factory circa 1905-1906, but this is actually another Fun House illusion or mirage!

From the background and mods to the Woodshed we know the the photo was taken much later, after 1918, when the Woodshed had been moved from grandpa Davidson's home at the corner of Highland & 38th and down the block to the Red Brick Factory on Chestnut.

That's about the same time (1919) when Harley was advertising for early models. Maybe this is one of the first bikes they scored and fixed up then made this nice staged photo of it!

Now Earl, get out your microscope and tell us why you think this bike here is SNO#1?

The bike has a six-stud motor, right?
The motor IS NOT a 1906 motor, as it does not have a casting feature particular to 1906 motors.
That means the motor is a 1905 model. There were a total of 5-8 motorcycles produced in 1905, depending on your source of info.

There are two known 1905 motors existing today. You can review that info earlier in this thread. One is owned by the Factory and is in the Lobby Bike.

I was able to take a lot of photographs of The Lobby Bike, aka Serial Number One (#1), when it was at York.
On the SNO #1 motor, there is a casting flaw that I saw.
When I took the photo of the gray strap-tank bike, and enlarged it, and zoomed in, guess what I saw? Right, the very same casting flaw.

There are additional features of the grey strap-tank machine that you can see on the Lobby/SNO #1 bike.
The frames are the same. The belt tensioner arrangement is the same. And the motor also appears to have a lower deck height, just like The Lobby Bike.

If that bike was photographed in or around 1918, there's a good possibility that it's still around today.

The other existing 1905 motor DOES NOT have that casting flaw, and DOES NOT have a lower deck height.

I believe that the grey strap-tank machine seen in the photo with the gentleman kneeling next to it, is in fact The Lobby Bike/SNO #1.

[HarleyCreation]

If some people wish to believe that the (1909) fork on the Factory collection 1908 model is original equipment and some kind of 1908 mid-year model change I can't stop them. But I urge them to consider the following:

1) There is no evidence from the time that proves it. We know of several old photographs from 1908 of Harley-Davidson motorcycles. None that we have seen show any of these bikes equipped with the 1909-type fork. Not even the most famous photo from 1908 showing Walter Davidson around the time that he won the National Endurance Contest. If someone can produce a 1908-dated photo of a 1908 model Harley wearing a 1909 fork that would be real evidence and I would gladly welcome it.

2) Putting the 1909 fork on the 1908 model doesn't make business sense. The 1909 Harley-Davidson was a completely new and different bike from the 1908: New motor, new frame, new tanks, new forks, etc. Why would Harley dilute the effect of introducing their totally new and exciting 1909 model by prematurely slapping the new fork on the old and obsolete 1908 model? Small mid-model changes maybe, but entirely new and different pattern forks? That doesn't make good business sense and I don't believe they did it. If the 1909 model had been merely the 1908 core bike with a new fork upgrade, that would be a different scenario, but the 1909 model was a new creation out of the young and fertile brain of William S. Harley and it was a totally new and complete package.

3) Without evidence from the day and with the many known flaws in the strap-tank Factory collection bikes, there is a simple solution for this fork discrepency. We know of countless examples of old bikes wearing the wrong forks because forks were both easily damaged and easily replaced. Since the Factory collection strap-tank jobs are already known to be incorrect in MANY respects, why complicate things with an unsubstantiated and hypothetical mid-year model change and premature introduction of the 1909 forks on the 1908 model? Especially when the more simple and more logical answer is that the 1908 is merely wearing the wrong year forks that is something we find all the time on old bikes anyway!

4) Much has been made of the excellent "original" patina of the Factory collection 1908 model, including presumably the forks. I don't doubt that. In fact I KNOW that is true even though I have not crawled around that machine and drooled on it like some very knowledgable early Harley experts may have done (altho I have been close enough to touch it). That bike must have nice patina because we KNOW it has been in its current condition since at least 1924 wearing those same forks. We can demonstrate that fact from photographs taken in 1924 during a patent litigation lawsuit. These are the photos taken in the corner of the Factory that show the wooden floor. We already saw the 1906/05/SNO#2 bike (with the sculpted seat) on this thread. In 1924 the 1908 was also photographed and at that time with those 1909 forks. That's over 80 years in that same condition of a "minty" bike wearing the wrong year fork.

My thinking is that very early on the original 1908 fork got tweaked or bent (or maybe the owner simply upgraded his bike for other reasons) and that the original fork was professionally replaced with a 1909 model fork. Since the bike was so nice when they got it after 1919 (but before 1924), Harley-Davidson left it that way. As the years went by the 1909 fork on this 1908 model bike just became accepted as original equipment which has led to some erroneous conclusions about its correctness and its purity.

Now I have also made some assumptions here myself. But until evidence is found to prove otherwise, I'll stick with the available evidence we do have and the most simple and logical reason that we find a 1909 fork on a 1908 model Harley-Davidson. It's simply the wrong fork, but one that was put on this bike a very very long time ago.

The following photo was published in Wiesner's book, 1989, p.19. Not the best quality, but it shows the 1908 Factory collection bike in 1924. We know that year from the photo's negative number: 9443. Over 80 years ago we see the bike already with the 1909 fork on it. Long enough to gather a nice patina, esp. if the rest of the bike is minty anyway.

[silentgreyfello]

response to above post.

I appreciate the theory from Harley Creation's post. However, there could be another point of view that could be acceptable as well. I will play the devil's advocate here...

Response to No. 1)
Just because there isn't a 1908 photo of a 1908 model with the later fork is not proof that it didn't happen.


Response to 2).
I think it actually could make business sense. Harley was paying a royalty to Sager. The sooner they could develop their own fork, the sooner they take all the cash, not just part of it. Isn't that what most businesses do... grab the cash? I wouldn't say a mid-year change on a fork is that big of a change. Look no further than Harley later in life. They changed forks/frames midyear. If they can do it in the thirties and later, they surely would do it in 1908 if they could make a couple of extra bucks.

Bottom line... We don't have any hard evidence to prove one way or another if they used the 1909 fork on later 1908's. Lack of a 1908 photo for a few bikes is not evidence that they didn't exist. One thing we do know on that bike is that the seat is 1912 and later!

[silentgreyfello]

no exhaust cutout

Looking at the photo of the factory bike, it appears that there is not the exhaust cutout lever above the tank or the rod going down to the muffler. See next paragraph why perhaps it was removed...

This lever placement was the second most retarded thing harley ever did. It is in a very dangerous place if you are trying to pedal start the bike and your pant leg catches it! It will rip your pants close to the family jewels (know firsthand). The stupidest thing, though, is that to remove the fuel tanks, you have to remove the motor, which is babbited in.

[martin]

1907 Harley twin

Was there a 1907 Harley twin ever prodused? If so, how many were made? I am getting some conflicting information.

[c.o.]

Not until '09 martin..........Don't worry there's a lot of conflicting information out there............

[HarleyCreation]

Re: response to above post.

Originally posted by silentgreyfello


Response to No. 1)
Just because there isn't a 1908 photo of a 1908 model with the later fork is not proof that it didn't happen.

You're right. Proving a negative is not possible. Just like I can't prove that a spaceship from Neptune didn't land on the Juneau Avenue Factory last night at Midnight and unloaded the 2010 models with 10-speed gearboxes and 200 cubic inch motors. But without supporting evidence are we going to accept it as true or publish that information as fact?

When a person makes an extraordinary claim the burden of proof lies with the person making that claim. For example, if I claim that Harley-Davidson built a V-twin motorcycle in 1907 the burden of proof is on me to prove that it happened. The burden wouldn't be on the rest of the world to prove that it didn't happen!

Likewise if today we find a 1909 fork on a 1908 Harley in somebody's collection and another guy claims that Harley must have made a mid- to late-1908 fork model change, the person making that claim needs to provide some supporting evidence showing that it's a true statement of fact and not just a case of mistaken identity, namely of a 1909 fork on a 1908 bike.

Because when I review the 1908 photos, literature, and other material, I don't find any 1909 forks on 1908 Harley's at all. It's the same old story of 1908 forks on 1908 Harleys and why wouldn't it be? I'm not saying such an early introduction couldn't have happened, but if it did happen let's see some supporting documention that proves it. I don't think that's an unreasonable position to take. What do you other guys think?

Originally posted by silentgreyfello


Response to 2).
I think it actually could make business sense. Harley was paying a royalty to Sager. The sooner they could develop their own fork, the sooner they take all the cash, not just part of it. Isn't that what most businesses do... grab the cash? I wouldn't say a mid-year change on a fork is that big of a change. Look no further than Harley later in life. They changed forks/frames midyear. If they can do it in the thirties and later, they surely would do it in 1908 if they could make a couple of extra bucks.

IMO, putting the 1909 fork on the old 1908 model would have been a RADICAL change to make, esp. when the 1909 Harley was totally new in every respect and a HUGE deal as their de Luxe 1909 catalogue shows. But you may hold another view. Nor do I know offhand that Harley did anything like that later. Was the VL fork introduced on the JD? Was the EL fork introduced on the VL? Was the Hydra-Glide introduced on the Knucklehead?

Nor do I know if Harley was paying Sager royalties that early. Their agreement that I have seen is dated 1911. We do know that Harley was paying money to Sager in 1907, but for what exactly I'm not sure at this moment. In addition, Sager's patent (issued 1907) covered both the Harley 1909 fork and the 1908 fork. Are you saying that Sager designed and/or built the 1908 fork for Harley? I'm not sure of that at all, but it does raise some interesting questions about the early forks. How much if any of the 1907 fork made by Sager? Whose design was the 1908 fork and who manufactured it? All the Harley spring forks right up thru the 1948 Panhead were Sager-type forks, but how much did Sager actually contribute besides the original design concept? Here you guys who are more familiar the actual iron may be able to tell us some important stuff.

[HarleyCreation]

Re: Sager forks

Originally posted by silentgreyfello
For what it's worth... I count at least three different forks that Sager produced...

1. An attachment to hook up to an existing rigid fork for both bicycles and motorcycle. This fork had a brace that attached to the outside of the rigid legs. There is a photo on p. 104 of "At the Creation". I personally have never seen pix of this on a motorcycle.

2. The Sager fork that was used on the bike Walter is sitting on in "early" 1907. The only reason I say early is that I have an 11x14 photo from the original glass negative. In the photo, you can see the flowers in the grass in bloom. I guess the only thing that is for sure is that it is spring... I'll let others argue the year. This fork is not an attachment... the connection from the underside of the triple plates to the front leg is welded onto the bottom of the triple plates. It appears to be a poor and weak design. There is an orig paint bike in the midwest that I believe (now) to be a 1907 that has this fork. It's motor number is 1981. It has the smooth fenders, no exhaust cutout, and fuel filler in, gasp, the front with rounded edges! And it ain't no cob job near as I could tell.

3. The third style sager is the most commonly seen (like 2037 and 2042 have. When did they change to this style? 1907, mid 1907, or 1908. I am surmising it was mid-1907, but of course I am a little too young to actually have been there.

Fascinating stuff!

That photo was taken during the first half of 1907. We know that from the date the wooden factory in the background was built and when the photo was published in the summer of 1907.

There is a difference between a Sager-type fork and a Sager-built fork. All the Harley spring forks (except the Sport Model) were Sager-type forks, but how many were actually made by Sager for Harley?

You seem to say here that Sager actually manufactured the 1907 and 1908 forks for Harley-Davidson.

Am I correct in that?

Except for its tank with rounded edges and front filler, that bike #1981 really does sound like a true 1907 model. That's a substantial discovery that I wasn't aware of and it sounds like the most original 1907 Harley discovered so far. Can you tell us if it's in a collection or in a barn?

[HarleyCreation]

Re: 1907 Harley twin

Originally posted by martin
Was there a 1907 Harley twin ever prodused? If so, how many were made? I am getting some conflicting information.

We fully cover that story in the 2003 book At the Creation with much new evidence and new discoveries never published before in any book on Harley.

What we took away in lopping off two years of production (1904 and 1903) we restored to them in twins built earlier than anyone had previously expected!

[Earl]

Originally posted by c.o.
Not until '09 martin..........Don't worry there's a lot of conflicting information out there............

Sorry, but you're incorrect c.o.

As HarleyCreation pointed out, there is substantial evidence provided in "At the Creation" proving that Harley was advertising twins for sale and had twin machines at shows as early as 1907.

Get the book !!!!!!

[Earl]

Originally posted by Earl


The bike has a six-stud motor, right?
The motor IS NOT a 1906 motor, as it does not have a casting feature particular to 1906 motors.
That means the motor is a 1905 model. There were a total of 5-8 motorcycles produced in 1905, depending on your source of info.

There are two known 1905 motors existing today. You can review that info earlier in this thread. One is owned by the Factory and is in the Lobby Bike.

I was able to take a lot of photographs of The Lobby Bike, aka Serial Number One (#1), when it was at York.
On the SNO #1 motor, there is a casting flaw that I saw.
When I took the photo of the gray strap-tank bike, and enlarged it, and zoomed in, guess what I saw? Right, the very same casting flaw.

There are additional features of the grey strap-tank machine that you can see on the Lobby/SNO #1 bike.
The frames are the same. The belt tensioner arrangement is the same. And the motor also appears to have a lower deck height, just like The Lobby Bike.

If that bike was photographed in or around 1918, there's a good possibility that it's still around today.

The other existing 1905 motor DOES NOT have that casting flaw, and DOES NOT have a lower deck height.

I believe that the grey strap-tank machine seen in the photo with the gentleman kneeling next to it, is in fact The Lobby Bike/SNO #1.

Does anyone have any comments or opinions?