some people just don't understand art

[flat-happy]

this is the worst looking thing i have ever seen. i wish it was illegal to molest such an icon. i guess beauty or "what is art" really is in the eye of the beholder. to me this is neither. JMHO

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1911-...item33572b13d1

[pete reeves]

Flat-happy.

This bike may look over restored, but Im not sure the word restored would apply in this case.

There is nothing molested on this bike. Crankcases may be original. The rest of the bike is new. 0r to put it another way it’s a timeless replica 1910 with what look like original crankcases and a Harley paint job.

Looks like a good business opportunity, you find some early crankcases or a beat up motor at a max cost of $7000 or less,buy a timeless replica at a cost of $11000 you end up with a bike valued in excess of $50000.

Pete reeves 860

[Barry Brown]

I like it. It looks very well done but I wouldn't pay that much for it!

[Matthew N. Olse]

I have never seen one in person, but I still think that they are cool. It is a lot better to have a repro bike with a real engine in it than to have an engine on a stand. If I had a motor, I would do the same thing.

[exeric]

I agree with Matt. I think it's commendable to put a real engine back to work and in a format that pays tribute to the original. I've seen so many engines sitting on display with no chance of ever being used again. To me, that should be illegal.

[pete reeves]

I to think that the bike looks great and that original motors with no chance of ever being reunited with an original rolling chassis should be given a new lease of life if possible.
Its far better to display the motor in some thing that looks like an original chassis you can ride and experience the frills of riding with no brakes.

A question that I have is at what point would this Timeless replica become a Harley-Davidson?

Pete Reeves 860

[Northwoods_Maine]

"A question that I have is at what point would this Timeless replica become a Harley-Davidson?"

As a new member, my answer would be "never" but that's just one man's perspective. In my mind you would have to have MOCO engine AND frame to truely consider it a Harley. If you drop a 454 big block in a set of deuce rails with a '32 fiberglass body, it doesn't make it a Chevy.

[Robert Luland]

What! No warranty?

[Greg H]

"A question that I have is at what point would this Timeless replica become a Harley-Davidson?"

As a new member, my answer would be "never" but that's just one man's perspective. In my mind you would have to have MOCO engine AND frame to truely consider it a Harley. If you drop a 454 big block in a set of deuce rails with a '32 fiberglass body, it doesn't make it a Chevy.

In theory it could be judged?
So presume it could be titled as H-D
If the frame is a good/best copy as with other parts, as a fully restored machine.
This only works with Harley-Davidsons with regard to no frame number as a vin?

[exeric]

Remember; "Only her hairdresser knows for sure". Many old bikes are massive reproductions and this goes back many years. Our founder, Ted Hogden's 1912 Henderson is a good case in point. He found a horribly defiled early Henderson and made the effort to bring it back to it's original dimensions. I will never criticize anyone for making a home for an orphan engine because everyone benefits from making these historic machines look and work like they did. You have a better chance of getting hit by lightning than finding a complete 1911 H-D that is all genuine. I think it's arrogant to throw rocks at people who bring these engines back to life in a new chassis. . . Unless they're attempting to profit from deception. . . But that's a whole different discussion that has been beat to death here.

[D.Mac]

Don't get dirt on my tires!

I agree that it's laudable to put this engine in a frame and make a whole bike out of it. At least it could be ridden, although the bike is so overdone that it's unlikely(you think we'll see this one on the "Cannonball Run"?). The type of person that would buy this is probably not a rider, just a collector or "investor". He can keep it wrapped in cellophane along with his precious coins and other valuables. As to when it becomes a Harley Davidson?, well, as soon as the new buyer gets it home, just ask him!
Doug.

[pete reeves]

Eric.
I hear and agree with what you are saying But the question I am asking is what percentage of original parts need to be on a replica bike for it to change its status from replica to restored.
I am not throwing stones at people who have to use reproduction frames as I am doing just that on one of my current projects.
In my view Ted Hogdens 1912 Henderson is a restoration as I understand there was still a large content of original parts used on it
But if I was to purchase a timeless and fit half a crankcase on it would it still be a replica with an original crankcase half or would it be a restored Harley-Davidson?

Pete reeves 860.

[exeric]

Personally, I think the content of genuine parts has to be over 50% for the bike to be considered restored. With the following caveats:

1. Genuine motor would count as 25%
2. Genuine cases but repro cyl., heads, timer, carb, etc. 15%
3. Genuine frame and fork 25%
4. Genuine fuel tank, tool box, and fenders 25%
5. Genuine wheels, handlebars, pedal cranks, muffler, seat, controls. . . maybe 5% each.

I think that just touches on how you could appraise early motorcycles. There are many variations and exceptions but the motor and frame are the most vital components. However, I don't think you have anything unless the motor is genuine.

[LouieMCman]

I have seen a few close to 100 point bikes that the engine was the only old part, so
I guess it that Timeless "IS" a HD in those judges eyes........judges opinions ???

[flat-happy]

i doubt judges will weigh in. too many of them own bikes covered with reproduction parts. they aren't going to sell each other out. my buddy has a 39 that scored 98.8 and yeah it has neutral in the middle of the shift gate but not much of the rest is genuine hd. it was purchase from a "former amca judge" supposedly. well if it had belonged to me i think it would have gotten more like 93 points. i knew i would ruffle a few feathers with the way i worded the first post in this thread but i think it has gotten more discussion that way. i wish more would give their opinion on this subject. why? because we don't need more old antique bikes on the road than were ever made. they have only been around for a hundred years or so and look what it has evolved into. what are the 200 year old bikes going to look like 100 years from now? sure we'll all be dead and gone but that's why i wanted to make a point that we are only stewards of this stuff for future generations. i think we should be more responsible as a band of brothers that's all. it would be easy enough to do with the internet and all---i'm just sayin'