Luggage Carrier VL Fitting Issues

[gitguy]

Inkedioehhbibhz_LI.jpgRecently scored a real nice luggage carrier for my 1932 VL. However, there is an issue. It seems that the mudguard width exceeds the distance between the diagonal braces on the rack so it is not possible to mount the carrier as to the interference. After exhaustive research I have been unable to determine how many different luggage carriers were available of this style and which one would be correct for 1932. Can anyone offer some insight?

The photo shows where the interference occurs.

Thanks!

[1950Panhead]

The 1947 accessory catalog has two types, fender mount and WLA style with V brackets on both sides.
Your rack is not VL or knucklehead.

[HDSmitty]

I went through the same (and more) fitment issues with my rack on my 36 VLD. It took a bit of "massaging" to get it to fit but finally did and I love having it back there. Be patient and don't give up....you'll get it. This rack (or VERY similar variants) was the primary rack used on HD Big twins from 1917 to, I believe, the late 30's and will fit bikes up to the end of the rigid frame era. I know there was originally a 1917 part # that I think was changed somewhere along the line. Hope this helps.......Smitty

[Rubone]

That rack, -17 part number, came in at least three variations for fender width. All the differences are in the diagonal brace at the rear. They were available through '40. and were even stock fitment on some military models. Here is one sitting on a Knucklehead fender, which they were indeed used on. DCP_2699.JPG

[MMasa]

Gitguy
it looks as if you have the rack that was used up through 1925 for the narrow fenders. Starting in 1926 with the introduction of the wide fenders, the two diagonal braces at the front were significantly shortened in order to clear the fender. The rear diagonal braces remained unchanged because the fender had “fallen away” sufficiently at the rear to clear.
Is your interference only at the front diagonals?
There were other changes over the years to the bend of the front mounting tab that bolts to the fender but that is relatively easy to modify as needed.
I have also been told, but have never personally seen an example, that there is a variant that is “taller”. That’s to say that the distance from the bottom mounting holes to the top of the rack is greater.
Mark Masa

[gitguy]

Gitguy
it looks as if you have the rack that was used up through 1925 for the narrow fenders. Starting in 1926 with the introduction of the wide fenders, the two diagonal braces at the front were significantly shortened in order to clear the fender. The rear diagonal braces remained unchanged because the fender had “fallen away” sufficiently at the rear to clear.
Is your interference only at the front diagonals?
There were other changes over the years to the bend of the front mounting tab that bolts to the fender but that is relatively easy to modify as needed.
I have also been told, but have never personally seen an example, that there is a variant that is “taller”. That’s to say that the distance from the bottom mounting holes to the top of the rack is greater.
Mark Masa

Yes Mark, the interference is at the front diagonal braces. I am really opposed to modifying the piece to fit because it is a really nice original from what I can tell. So I'll probable put this one up for sale and continue to search for a later version that will fit my application.

Anyone interested in an early luggage carrier?

Thanks all for chiming in!

[gitguy]

That rack, -17 part number, came in at least three variations for fender width. All the differences are in the diagonal brace at the rear. They were available through '40. and were even stock fitment on some military models. Here is one sitting on a Knucklehead fender, which they were indeed used on. DCP_2699.JPG

Interesting that you say the only changes were to the rear brace since the interference on this one is at the front.

[gitguy]

This photo I posted is not of my rack but a generic pic that I found online for illustration purposes only.

[Rubone]

Interesting that you say the only changes were to the rear brace since the interference on this one is at the front.

My bad, I meant the front, which is obvious in the picture.

[HDSmitty]

Someone needs to say it so it may as well be me...........nice rack!

[HDSmitty]

Someone needs to say it so it may as well be me....nice rack!

[HDSmitty]

Someone needs to say it so it may as well be me...nice rack!

[HDSmitty]

why did that post 3 times? who knows

[Steve Slocombe]

Harley kept using the 2817-17 part number until 1934, because the later racks fit the early bikes even if the early racks don't fit the later bikes with wider mudguards. They finally changed to 2817-34 in 1934 for the new wider VL mudguards. These racks have the front diagonal brackets shortened in order to clear the wider mudguard, as pictures. The top rack is about 16 x 9" but the important dimension for later Harleys is the overall length of the vertical leg from top of rack to bottom of leg, which needs to be 15", Even then you can see the rack is nearly flush with the mudguard top.

[gitguy]

Harley kept using the 2817-17 part number until 1934, because the later racks fit the early bikes even if the early racks don't fit the later bikes with wider mudguards. They finally changed to 2817-34 in 1934 for the new wider VL mudguards. These racks have the front diagonal brackets shortened in order to clear the wider mudguard, as pictures. The top rack is about 16 x 9" but the important dimension for later Harleys is the overall length of the vertical leg from top of rack to bottom of leg, which needs to be 15", Even then you can see the rack is nearly flush with the mudguard top.

Thanks for that important information Steve. Only if I had known this before I bought the bloody thing! VL information is not always easy to find and I even have your book.