48 FL Panhead – ‘Junior First’ Judging – Questions – 4 topics????

[harleygreg]

Hi Guys – I need some help here. A couple of years ago the bike got a 'Junior Second' so I did a lot of work and entered for a 'Junior First' and it failed on a number of areas I didn't expect.

I had deductions for these items, which were not picked up on previous judging and are confusing me.

Inlet Nipple Rivet etc – I thought these items were standard parts as they fix the Inlet nipple in place – see image from parts book and photo of bike – any idea why would I be getting a deduction for these?

Dustshield – this is part of the assembly part number 48327-36 (upper head cone assembly) – see images and is the cover that fits over the bearing race at the top of the front forks. You can see the image of the part in place, also an image of the previous part which appears to have a similar geometry and an image of a repro part from WWAG, again, all look the same? The problem one judge highlighted is the ‘lip’, highlighted in one of the images, which on an OEM part ‘curves over’ more than those shown? I can’t find any images of the OEM part – any comments?

Front Forks – bent? This is odd and potentially more serious. One of the judges viewed the dimple in the front edge of the downtube (45609-36?) – see image of both sides – as evidence of a bend. The forks are correct for the 48, but Palmers does not show any close ups of that portion of the fork. Has anyone seen this before? Should these dimples be there or not?

Front and Rear Hubs – see image (43546-36 Hub Shell). This is the third type referred to on p 195, in Palmers. It appears from Palmers that the spoke flange and center tube were spot welded together. There are no spot welds on my 48. This leads me to believe they are repros? I had 4 points deducted for the two hubs which seems excessive as repro parts are allowed and the limit deduction for hubs is 1 point for each? Any comments welcome?

Thanks for your support.

Greg


1 - Inlet Nipple Rivet.JPG

2 - Head Cone Dustshield.JPG

3 - Front Forks.JPG

4 - Hubs.JPG

[T. Cotten]

Please note, Greg,...

The 'blueprint' year at the end of the nutty nipple assembly is -52.

(I believe it was a one-year-only application, as they often literally suck.)

.....Cotten
PS: I'll never be a judge, but I'd ding you for the wrong manifold, too.
48MANI.jpg
Note silver-soldered construction, and spigots are not machined.
By '49, they were machined.

48-49MANIS.jpg

Yours is a cast model.

[harleygreg]

Thanks Tom

[Rubone]

The inlet nipple is a rivet in '48. Those nut and bolt type were '52 as shown in the parts book and are incorrect.
Does your bike have Timken bearings on the fork stem? It looks like a Timken cup in the frame. That in itself is incorrect but the dust shield definitely doesn't fit correctly.
Those dimples in the fork legs are a problem, they do not belong there.
Aftermarket parts like hubs are acceptable if they are made like the original parts, if not they can be dinged as yours were.
Knuckle fork stem.jpg

[Jerry Wieland]

Those are dents in the fork legs and should not be there. It also looks like your rear hub is the later style that started in 1956 or 1957. I have never seen a part number change to reflect the different profile but the fossil record definitely shows the later panhead hub with a reenforced drive flange.


Jerry

[otis71]

There is two variations of the type 3 hub. Not certain which years but one type had a rounded edge going into the flange and the other was more squared off. If it’s not specified in the Palmer book PM me and I’ll figure it out by looking and comparing them on my bikes.

[harleygreg]

Hi - so it seems to me that the 58 - 66 wheel hub was distinguishable by the machined (flat) edge of the flange. Neither of these hubs have that machined edge so that would lead me to believe they were the 'third' type, ie the 44 - 57 type. Interestingly on further investigation, the front hub does have the spot welds. So I suspect I have a genuine or reproduction front hub (if repro, then manufactured in the same way as the OEM) and a repro rear hub????

Rubone - no, the bearings are not timken, they are plain ball bearings, and so the adjusting nut is as shown in image 2.

Thanks

[duffeycycles]

pics of hubs are not good enough to see,but they look repop to me.
Too close to square on the corner of the brake side for pre '58 & not square like '58 up

[harleygreg]

thanks Duffey

[Jerry Wieland]

Greg Here are pictures of the 1943 to 57 hub vs the 1958 to 66 hub. The 1943 to 57 hub you need is on the left. I think what you may have is the 1958 and up hub. In the first photo the drive side flange is on the left as viewed from the rear of the motorcycle. In the secnd photo the drive side flanges are facing each other in the middle.

Jerry DSC03329.JPG DSC03328.JPG

[duffeycycles]

VTwin link showing their replacement version

Star Hub Wheel Assembly

[harleygreg]

That's interesting Jerry, the different geometry is clearly shown with the flat edge of the flange and the sharpness of the corner on the 58 + hub, whereas the older hub definately has a more rounded flange and a more rounded edge. The spot welds can be clearly seen on the 'old' one, and I'm assuming the newer one was not spot welded? I think I may need to get the wheels off for a better look - I'll respond in a couple of days, thanks, Greg

[harleygreg]

Thanks for the image Duffey - looks similar, I'll check it out

[Jerry Wieland]

That's interesting Jerry, the different geometry is clearly shown with the flat edge of the flange and the sharpness of the corner on the 58 + hub, whereas the older hub definately has a more rounded flange and a more rounded edge. The spot welds can be clearly seen on the 'old' one, and I'm assuming the newer one was not spot welded? I think I may need to get the wheels off for a better look - I'll respond in a couple of days, thanks, Greg

Both hubs were spot welded but the paint o the one on the right hids them. Pre 1943 hubs were brazed.

Jerry

[droptopford]

Lots of knowledge here. And I understand the desire to get things as close to original as possible in the AMCA judging process. But... seems like dinging you for things that got by earlier is C.S.