the first Harley's

[silentgreyfello]

This highly used photo shows what I believe is a 1907 with tank fill on the side, sager attachment fork, and smooth fenders. Herb, any idea when this was taken? Obviously a new machine. I have a large 11x17 photo taken off an original glass negative of this bike and the detail is pretty amazing.

[jurassic]

[c.o.]

Now ain't that somethin'? Great pic Jim! Thanks for taking the time to post it!

[HarleyCreation]

This highly used photo shows what I believe is a 1907 with tank fill on the side, sager attachment fork, and smooth fenders. Herb, any idea when this was taken? Obviously a new machine. I have a large 11x17 photo taken off an original glass negative of this bike and the detail is pretty amazing.

We know for sure this photo was taken no later than July of 1907. We know this because a cropped version of this SAME photo appeared in the Milwaukee Journal newspaper that month.

[HarleyCreation]

You're right. Altho it says Guy Webb, the same image was used on the 1907 "advance bulletin" put out by C.H. Lang, so it's early 1907.

There is evidence that at least one 1907 twin was built.

I believe this to be a brochure from 1907, though I don't have proof of that. I am still searching for the double cylinder that was offered.

[HarleyCreation]

the general meaning of my statement was that we dont know exactly when the sager fork was introduced. it appears from the 1907 ad ,that by may 4 1907 they were not using the sager fork ,only the sager attachment.didn't someone have some records or an order form from sager to harley? i seem to remember something about that.i doubt the attachment was used in 1908,so possibly somewhere between may 1907 and jan 1908 the change over was made.

Forgetting about the Factory collection bikes for now and only going by early ads & photos we can accurately date, how many fork variations can we identify on 1907 and 1908 models?

I think that I used to know this, but can't remember anymore (banging head on wall).

1) Sager attachment type (seen in early '07 ads)
2) 1908 model has Sager "type" fork beefed up and modified, presumably by Bill Harley. Let's call that an H-D fork.

But was there something in-between different from the 1908 fork? That is, a later (non-attachment) 1907 fork that wasn't the 1908 fork either.

If there was, it's probably the fork in the photo silentgrayfellow posted as we can accurately date that photo to July of 1907. The photo on p.115 of At the Creation was taken in August of 1907. There are also several photos and drawings of 1908 forks in the Creation book.

Where is Earl? His memory is better than mine. I'm sure he's worked this out and can remember.

I also put this together back in 2006. It sure looks like there is a difference between the SGF photo fork and the 1908 Chandler bike fork:

http://www.atthecreation.com/fork.co...K.COMPARE.html

It looks like the 1908 fork was beefed up again over the 1907 beefed up fork (NOT early attachment type but H-D type). That would make 3 types, or 4 if we add the 1909 model:

1) Sager attachment fork, early 1907 (ads)
2) Beefed up Bill Harley fork ("Sager type") later 1907 (SGF's photo)
3) Ultra beefed up Bill Harley fork ("Sager type") 1908 (from 1908 H-D literature)
4) 1909 model had a completely new H-D fork.

Once we get this straight, we can go back and figure out the Factory collection bikes.

Wouldn't that be nice?

[jurassic]

crank pin looks nice,but the cam cover is not going to be easy to remove.

[jurassic]

my worries about the cylinder wall were unfounded.its clean as a whistle,no rust,pitting ,or scars.sweet.

[c.o.]

That bloody motor continues to amaze me! Man it's in good shape for it's age........ Maybe flathappy was right with his theory. Maybe that piston was a little too tall or was the rod a little long?

[jurassic]

well 2 of the srews came out ,and 2 were so rusted ,they just twisted off ,so actually it wasn't to hard to get the cam cover off.some screw extraction will be neccesary ,but looks pretty basic.low and behold ,the cam is nearly perfect too. the cam slid right out ,no numbers on it though.notice the crack on the case where the lifter block slides in. 1835 had this same crack. we didn't fix it ,as it was really thin in that area. must have been a problem with alot of them.

[c.o.]

Again thanks for posting this stuff. This new trend of photo posting is a great thing for this forum! Where else would I get a chance to have a look at the inner workings of such a motor?

[jurassic]

this picture answers some questions i've had for a while. i know what an original compression release lever looks like. i know what an original timer looks like.the timer retaining ring ,i saw one like this on the florida bike ,and thought it was home made. i dont think it was now. and of course the 21,not 2221 ,just 21 . dig it.

[jurassic]

that 1908 cam lifter looks a lot my shovelhead lifter. no numbers on the lifter block. this is something i had wondered about ,as the so called "comet" motor ,which is nearly identical to this engine, did have numbers on the lifter block ,and the cylinder pad.

[jurassic]

1133a

this is 1133a ,possibly a comet motor ,though no proof of anything is available. the two motors are obviously very similar.

[jurassic]

well 2 of the srews came out ,and 2 were so rusted ,they just twisted off ,so actually it wasn't to hard to get the cam cover off.some screw extraction will be neccesary ,but looks pretty basic.low and behold ,the cam is nearly perfect too. the cam slid right out ,no numbers on it though.notice the crack on the case where the lifter block slides in. 1835 had this same crack. we didn't fix it ,as it was really thin in that area. must have been a problem with alot of them.

2221 picture