J is for junky

[MMasa]

The double pedal idea is interesting. There are slight differences between the two pedal transmissions for 1915 and 1916. I actualy have both a 1915 and a 1916 two pedal transmission and have been seriously considering using the 1916 two pedal setup on my 1916. I'm including a pic of the left side of both the 1915 (on this post) and the 1916 (next Post) Note the cast in oil sling groove around the top gear on the 1916 as well as the oil drain and 1916 only dirt guard under the oil drain hole. You can also see that the bushing for the counter shafy is different between the two. The 1915 used a smaller countershaft which ran on bronze bushings. The 1916 countershaft and gear ran on roller bearings. I have three 1916 bottom ends. One electric model, and two mag models (one of which has the D after the M) I would REALLY like more input on this to help me firm up my decision on wich engine to use.
Thanks
Mark Masa

[MMasa]

This is a pic of the 1916 two pedal trans from the left.

[exeric]

Mark, I think the pedal configuration for the 1916 J makes it into one of the most unique and interesting bikes of that era. I have always liked the odd ball offerings that the big factories had in their catalogs. Bikes that come to mind are the Big valve Excelsior, both short coupled and 3 speed models of 1916. And, the 1923 Indian Standard that blended the Powerplus and the Big Chief into a sperate model. I think H-D and Indian found an easy home for obsolete inventory but Excelsior had to do quite a bit of work to graft the old and new frames together to make the short coupled bike. Regardless of this penny pinching and creative use of parts in inventory, the big 3 produced bikes that I consider extreamly desireable. As for the pedal model 1916 H-D. Do you think it was a "budget model" or a motorcycle aimed at customers who were used to pedal start bikes from before 1916 ?

[MMasa]

1916 Dual Pedal

Eric
I doubt that it was Harley using up excess inventories since there are changes in the case from 1915 to 1916. I would think that they were hedging their bets. Maybe they didn't know how the rear stroke starter would be received? Maybe in 1915 they weren't sure if the patterns and castings would be ready in time for the 1916 models. It would have been a simple matter to modify the existing tooling for the 1916 trans. updates listed in previous posts. My money however is on the first option. Harley seemed to be a conservative group of fellows. I say that it was a fall back if people didn't like the kick starter or if problems developed.
Mark Masa