Vin Numbers

[rick anderson]

Hello, I am trying to find out why Harley-Davidson used specific letters in the vin numbers to designate their models and what did they stand for? I am doing research for a college paper and I cant find this information. I would realy appreciate any help I can get. Thank you.
example,JD,E, EL,FL,FLH,K,WL,UL ect....

[23JDCA 808]

http://www.techsweb.us/hdvin1019.html
Good luck. ...bill

[HarleyCreation]

Originally posted by 23JDCA 808
http://www.techsweb.us/hdvin1019.html
Good luck. ...bill

(snip)

1903
* Model of 1903:
Production: 3

1904
*Model 0: 24.74c.i.(405.41cc) F-Head single.
Production: 8

1905
* Model 1: 24.74c.i.(405.41cc) F-Head single.
Production: 16

That guy put a lot of work into that website about H-D VIN info, but his sources are not always accurate.

I dispute that there was any 1903 model at all or a 1904 H-D "Model 0" (i.e. "Model Zero") that was produced or marketed.

The website reveals as much when it correctly lists 1905 as "Model 1."

This is basic stuff for a true understanding of H-D production and subsequent model & VIN data.

Anyone who believes that Harley-Davidson produced or marketed motorcycles in 1903 or in 1904 is seriously misinformed -- or worse.

There was a proto finished by the latter part of 1904, but production and sales did not begin until the spring of 1905.

The notion of bikes built and sold in 1903 and 1904 is pure MYTH that originated as early advertising hype when H-D tried to match Indian as some kind of a pioneer in the American motorcycle industry.

[Paps]

He starts his website off explaining possible errors in information and asking for clarifications. All in all, he posts what he knows or learns per information provided. Hopefully, those who are in the know, will correct what few errors he has made. Paps

[Blupacer]

vin numbers

tech sweb is a good start ,understanding why H-D used a lettter is hard to follow . Each decade seems to have differant meanings.
By the teens year and first letter gave modal and type of engine, next letters mean differant opations. H-D order forms give explation of codes each year. Buy late 30's it startes to get easer
to follow,fewer models, W-45' ,U-74', UH-80',E-61'OHV and G for
45' Servi-cars. THE 40's we get F-74'OHV . I could go on but this may not be what your looking for.

[exeric]

I've always wondered about H-D's letter prefix system. Indian's letter prefix system was pure logic. Henderson also followed a logical progression with the exception of no letter "I" and the myterious "J" in "KJ". I've always wondered if H-D's letter system was created and mapped out for the future, by the founders. In other words, if the letter prefixes had some sentimental signifigance to them. It's obvious there is no logical progression considering the "J" series goes into the "V" series, which goes into the "E" series, however does follow some logic with the complimenting "F" series. . . . Whew ! Any ideas ?

[Perry Ruiter]

Actually the model E is the one that seems logical, considering they had produced a model A, B, C and D in the preceding decade ... Perry

[exeric]

I was thinking in relation to the big twins Perry. With the big twin being the front line model, you would think there would be a logical progressive identification system. However, if you look at the radical engine changes in the big twins, (i.e. the IOE, to side valve, to OHV) then logic gets a bit mangled. Maybe the founders looked at each new engine type as a whole new chapter and not as a historical stepping stone like we do.

[HarleyCreation]

Originally posted by Paps
He starts his website off explaining possible errors in information and asking for clarifications. All in all, he posts what he knows or learns per information provided. Hopefully, those who are in the know, will correct what few errors he has made. Paps

You are certainly right. I'll try to email him with updated info.

[HarleyCreation]

From what I can gather, the first or initial letter in Harley model designations usually do not mean anything beyond simple identification (but I'm not going to say they never do because there are some that do mean something: i.e. early mag vs. battery?). Also note that very early models used letters in an entirely different manner altogether.

Subsequent letters (J & DH, E & L, etc.) usually do have meaning (higher compression, special motor, etc), and that originated in the Engineering Department. But there is no hard and fast consistent system over the decades. You just have to know what each letter means at a given period.

Then there is a 3rd catagory that includes made up stuff for advertising purposes. These would include the 1904 "Model Zero" and "CH" (XLCH) that in the 1960s Enthusiast writers interpreted as meaning "competition hot."

This is not a very good explanation and only touches on a very complicated subject with constant exceptions and special cases. This Harley model designation thing deserves a book of its own and I've considered that as a worthwhile project.

[Lonnie]

Consider the following:

Though there is exceedingly strong evidence that H-D did not produce their first true working model until 1905, there is enough documentation to believe that Harley and the Davidsons (hey, good name for a band!) did begin their colloboration in 1903 with the purpose of producing such a vehicle and began working actively toward that goal at that time.

It is not uncommon for companies to evolve from such very humble beginnings. Apple computers would be one example. Considering the H-D history it can be stated that the company, as a colloborative effort, was established in 1903. Therefore the tape can be safely removed from the jacket and the jacket can be worn with pride.

H-D's convulted history of manufacture and the Company's own confusion on the issue is documented by H-D's own actions in publicly proclaiming (in 1953) that 1954 was their 50th anniversary year, even proudly emblazoning an emblem on their 1954 models to that effect.

Where many of us have a problem with the Motor Company is their refusal to acknowledge or even discuss their humble beginning years in any comprehensive manner. Their attitude is to ignore the facts documented in "At the Creation" with the hope that such beliefs will remain at the fringe of acceptable antique motorcycle discourse.

I personally find it a bit disenheartening that the myth of 1903-as-first-producion-model will be further bolstered by the museum in Milwaukee opening in '08. In effect, if you keep saying something often enough and loud enough the general populace will believe it and my non-antique motorcycle friends will continue to consider me a mildly deranged but harmless idiot.

Lonnie C. from SC

[Chuck#1848]

Originally posted by Lonnie

I personally find it a bit disenheartening that the myth of 1903-as-first-producion-model will be further bolstered by the museum in Milwaukee opening in '08. In effect, if you keep saying something often enough and loud enough the general populace will believe it and my non-antique motorcycle friends will continue to consider me a mildly deranged but harmless idiot.

Lonnie C. from SC [/B]

I have to agree 110% with you Lonnie..................as for the mildly deranged but harmless idiot.........that's not always a bad thing

[HarleyCreation]

Originally posted by Lonnie
Consider the following:

Though there is exceedingly strong evidence that H-D did not produce their first true working model until 1905, there is enough documentation to believe that Harley and the Davidsons (hey, good name for a band!) did begin their colloboration in 1903 with the purpose of producing such a vehicle and began working actively toward that goal at that time.

It is not uncommon for companies to evolve from such very humble beginnings. Apple computers would be one example. Considering the H-D history it can be stated that the company, as a colloborative effort, was established in 1903. Therefore the tape can be safely removed from the jacket and the jacket can be worn with pride.

H-D's convulted history of manufacture and the Company's own confusion on the issue is documented by H-D's own actions in publicly proclaiming (in 1953) that 1954 was their 50th anniversary year, even proudly emblazoning an emblem on their 1954 models to that effect.

Where many of us have a problem with the Motor Company is their refusal to acknowledge or even discuss their humble beginning years in any comprehensive manner. Their attitude is to ignore the facts documented in "At the Creation" with the hope that such beliefs will remain at the fringe of acceptable antique motorcycle discourse.

I personally find it a bit disenheartening that the myth of 1903-as-first-producion-model will be further bolstered by the museum in Milwaukee opening in '08. In effect, if you keep saying something often enough and loud enough the general populace will believe it and my non-antique motorcycle friends will continue to consider me a mildly deranged but harmless idiot.

Lonnie C. from SC

Yes indeed....

Actually the original collaboration between Harley and Arty Davidson (plus Melk) seems to have begun in 1901, altho only Bill Harley's name appears on the 1901 "Bicycle Motor" drawing that still exists in the Harley family collection.

Thus nobody is trying to take the year 1903 away from Harley-Davidson. On the contrary, 1903 was a pivotal year for them (Walter came home, Bill Harley started work on the new design, etc.)

Rather it is the extravagent claims that bikes were produced and marketed thru a dealer in 1903 and 1904 (and by some early advertising accounts in 1902 and 1901!) that need to be straightened out for the permanent record.

Typically, however, you don't claim "Est." before your product is created. For example, the Wright brothers didn't claim their origin when they first came up with an idea of an airplane, but rather its completion and first flight. Modern Harley is claiming a whole bunch of stuff that never happened in the first place and then hitching up their "Est. 1903" to these ficticious events. Est. 1903 does work, but not in its present interpretation.

That said "Est. 1905" when the company actually started producing and selling bikes is more accurate.

[HarleyCreation]

BTW: As far as I can determine, that "Est. 1903" logo for H-D only began around 1976 with the "Liberty Edition" bikes, graphics, and poster. Milwaukee artist Paul Smith, who worked on that project, saw similar "Est." logos on other products and thought it would look cool and work for Harley-D. Since "1903" was accepted in the 1970s, he adopted that year. Since that time "Est. 1903" has been plastered just about everywhere.

[Blupacer]

Reading from my Sept. 1953 ENTHUSIAST , Golden anniversary number, says boys , Arthur and Bill embarked on their dream and hobby.in 1901. Walter returned home in early 1903 to find their power bicycle far the finished stage. Lack of shop equipment was STILL a handicap ,but they got permission to use the small shop and tools of mutiual frind. After months rolled along the engine was installed in a bicycle frame and actually ran! No date given .Larger engine and looped frame then followed.
Can't a time line be established by when Bill Harley enrolled at Universty of Wisconsin? Looks like 1905 might be when it all came togeather but 1903 is OK with me for Established date.