Knuckle Jug Date Codes

[Chris Haynes]

[QUOTE=40 Nuck;68663]Thanks Chris,

In answering one question, you may also have answered another that I have yet to get a good answer on ... model year changeover. Was June typically the model year changeover? I would've guessed Sept - Oct. The reason this is important to me is that given my serial number, I would've thought a late 1939 date code would be appropriate. If the model year changeover was typically in June, however, maybe a mid-year date code would be best. My transmission is not original to my bike, but my engine, frame, heads, springer, cylinders are consistent. It seems that if we knew typical monthly production and model-year changeover, we could reasonably estimate the "birth-month" of our bikes.

The year model changeover got earlier as years went by. I can remember going to York a few years ago in June. The tour was shut down because they were in changeover mode.
Let's say your 1940 has one G 9 and one H 9 rocker box. Add to this an E 9 transmission case with a G 9 lid and an H 9 kicker. Your low number engine cases may have one side an G and the other side a H. These are the dates the part was cast. Not the date the motorcycle was built. I have never seen a bike where all the date codes were an exact match.


I remember the AMF days of the warehouse in the sky at York. Hundreds of engines and transmissions hanging from a steadily moving conveyer belt traveling back and forth across the ceiling of the plant. I watched the worker while he was plucking engines from this never ending line of engines. Not all engines were the same. Some bare and others black. Color coded tags on the engine told what model bike it was for at a glance. He would wait till the appropriate color tag engine came by a grabbed it. No particular order. I am sure that engines could stay up there for days or even weeks before being selected.

[Snakeoil]

This is a great thread. Love reading all the info that has been shared here. Does anyone happen to have a 1947 new models brochure. Would love to have a copy, scanned or otherwise for my bike.
Thanks,

[Chris Haynes]

This is a great thread. Love reading all the info that has been shared here. Does anyone happen to have a 1947 new models brochure. Would love to have a copy, scanned or otherwise for my bike.
Thanks,

Reprints of these brochures appear on eBay regularly.

[Perry Ruiter]

This is a great thread. Love reading all the info that has been shared here. Does anyone happen to have a 1947 new models brochure. Would love to have a copy, scanned or otherwise for my bike.
Thanks,

There's one on eBay right now. Go nuts ... Perry

[KNUCK]

Sure it will be fine, untill you find a judge who needs to nit pick.

Yes, and I have been on the end of that one before................Mr. Haynes.

[Snakeoil]

There's one on eBay right now. Go nuts ... Perry

Yup. Found it right after Chris mentioned it. Not cheap. I'm watching it.

[pete reeves]

I have seen points deducted because of changes in the casting that happened through the years and for changes relating to the position style or lack of a casting mark.

I have never seen judges deduct points from a bike because of a casting date code.
Although it’s nice to have all the codes from the correct period on your bike, it should not be a judging requirement

I personally feel the date code should be ignored when judging Perhaps Kevin (our chief judge) can make a ruling on this to prevent any controversy when bikes are judged?

Pete Reeves 860

[dommi7]

I don't know if I can agree - if you have 2 100point bikes side by side and one has correct cast codes while the other does not, don't you think the judging process should differentiate? Maybe a very minute deduction, but I don't think my 41 with 47 cast codes is quite as legitimate as someone elses 41 with 41 cast codes.

just my $0.02 (and not that I really care on my own bike, but others might)

[pete reeves]

Our judging system is not a competition. It is only necessary for a bike to achieve 95 points for it to receive the maximum award of winners circle.

I would prefer a restored bike that has all the correct date codes or a bike that has all original parts rather than one with some reproduction parts,
We make no deductions for good reproduction parts and in my opinion we should not make deductions for date codes. It would be perfectly within the judging rules too use the reproduction knucklehead cylinders that are now available that have the correct MC cast mark on them.

This is my interpretation of the judging rules, but I can see that other judges may interpret them differently.
That’s why I have suggested that the Chief Judge should make a ruling on this. .

Pete Reeves 860

[dommi7]

I hear you, Pete.
But if the restoration standard is: "exactly as it may have left the factory" then perhaps the judging should take into consideration casting codes. For the 5 fin knuckle cylinders, for some years, the date codes are all there is. No other maker's mark is visible.
If I look at a beehive taillight, am I willing to accept the light if it is missing the Harley-Davidson stamping across the top?
If I look at an intake manifold, am I willing to accept it if it is missing the 428 401 casting number?
Certainly the idea is to avoid discouragement of attempts at restoration or setting a standard that is not attainable. (or not judgeable)
On the other hand, if I can walk up to a Winners Circle bike and identify major components that are from the wrong production year, it doesn't seem quite right.
Sorry to everyone if I've pushed this thread in the wrong direction - I guess I should take the discussion over to the Judging forum.

[40 Nuck]

I hear you, Pete.
But if the restoration standard is: "exactly as it may have left the factory" then perhaps the judging should take into consideration casting codes. For the 5 fin knuckle cylinders, for some years, the date codes are all there is. No other maker's mark is visible.
If I look at a beehive taillight, am I willing to accept the light if it is missing the Harley-Davidson stamping across the top?
If I look at an intake manifold, am I willing to accept it if it is missing the 428 401 casting number?
Certainly the idea is to avoid discouragement of attempts at restoration or setting a standard that is not attainable. (or not judgeable)
On the other hand, if I can walk up to a Winners Circle bike and identify major components that are from the wrong production year, it doesn't seem quite right.
Sorry to everyone if I've pushed this thread in the wrong direction - I guess I should take the discussion over to the Judging forum.

I agree with Dommi ...

[Carl Olsen]

All of you guys that have concerns should get involved as an apprentice judge and bring this up at the judges meetings instead of talking about it here. Peter and I could sure use the help out there on the field and you could learn so much more about the bikes, as there are a lot more parts to look at on a bike when judging it than the cylinders. Get involved, it is a great learning experience and a lot of fun with your peers. Don't forget to ride this old iron as that is truely what it's all about.
Carl

[pete reeves]

Carl. Your right riding the bikes is what it’s really all about.
But I do think it’s better to talk things through and reach a consensus on this forum rather than argue about them on the judging field.

Ralph. The rear light and the inlet manifold you give as examples are both items used for a number of years and I think in both cases good quality reproductions are available. As far as the club rules go we can not make deductions for them as reproductions neither can we make deductions for a good quality reproduction cylinder, It would not be fare to deduct points for a correct original cylinder just because it has a later date code, its even possible that the cylinder was cast in the same mould as the engines original cylinder
I can see nothing but problems and arguments if we start to judge casting dates.

Pete Reeves 860

[Paps]

I have to agree. If you bought a bike under warranty, the engine failed, you took it back to the dealer, they replaced a cylinder or two, Wa La !!! Confict of date codes already. I have seen a date code chart on cylinders. Darned if I can remember where I saw it.

[jwl]

I have to agree. If you bought a bike under warranty, the engine failed, you took it back to the dealer, they replaced a cylinder or two, Wa La !!! Confict of date codes already. I have seen a date code chart on cylinders. Darned if I can remember where I saw it.

I see your point but the criteria is supposed to be how a bike left the factory, Not how it looked when the warranty ran out. This is getting way to complicated and nit picky for me. I used to be really excited about the judging process but it's getting harder to keep up with things as time goes on. For example, the Olsens restored a 55FL for me 10 years ago and it scored 97 right out of the box. I corrected a few things and got it up to 99.75. It is now in the winners circle. In the last few years things have gotten so technical that I wonder if the same bike would even make Jr. 1st by todays standards?

I also have a something to add to the comments made by Carl and Pete in the previous posts about riding the old bikes like they were meant to be ridden. I have quite a few old bikes and there are a few I ride and quite a few that I won't ride. They are mainly the original paint machines. Is there anything wrong with leaving them parked and preserving their integrity for future generations? In my humble opinion, if we ride all these original bikes until they are wore out and need a restoration that is good for Carl and Matt's business but it is not doing much to preserve them for future generations. I beleive it is well and good to ride the pi## out of restorations but maybe some of the originals should be kept as they are for reference by future generations. Am I way off base here or what?

Hope you all enjoy the holiday season!!!

John Lindemann