1965 Panhead Book Project

[Chris Haynes]

Chris,
The battery side cover is not shown in my 55-65 parts book, but does show up in 99456-67
parts supplement book, dated Sept 1966. It is shown as 65-*.
VPH-D

Parts books can really be a problem. The 65-* tells you it will fit the 1965-later machines. But that doesn't mean it is correct for those machines.
This reminds me of a nicely restored 1965 Panhead I judged at The Del Mar Concours a few years ago. I dinged the bike for having the wrong clamps on the intake manifold. The owner swore that they were correct and had the documentation to prove it. His documentation turned out to be a 1969 parts book, not a 1965. In the late '60's H-D was selling a different design Shovelhead clamp that would fit the Panheads. This is what was shown in the parts book. It would fit and work properly, but it was not correct.
The bottom line is that the wrap around battery cover did not appear untill the Fall 1965 accessory catalogue. This appearance was during the 1966 year model production and is not correct on a 1965.
I am not sure about the clubs position about accessories made after the year model of the bike being judged. In some cases judges will overlook accessories as if they are not there.
At the Dixon, CA meet a few years ago an East Coast judge showed up and ripped every 1965 Panhead in the show for not having a flat chrome battery cover on their bikes. They all had the -65 accessory cover on them. He claimed that 1965 was the only year to use this flat cover. Investigation showed that the cover he was referring to was an accessory made by Paughco and was not an H-D part or accessory.

[Chris Haynes]

Chris,
No, I have never seen any factory documentation on 51 footshifters, it's just one of those stories/myths you hear over the years.

VPH-D

Kind of like the old myth that the first 200 1948 models had Knuckle engines in them.

[vph-d]

Chris,
You are correct in your interpretation of parts books and their fitment statements. The cover is listed in the supplement as 65-*, which kind of indicates that it was used from 65 and up, even though we know it was not on early 65s. Parts books are full of things like this.

The longer you are involved with these machines, the less you realize you know.
It's 36 years hands-on for me, and I know little.
VPH-D

[gmarakas]

I know the judge you are referring to, Chris. He spent a lot of time assuming that his 65 was the only true representation in the world! Fortunately, the word is out on him and he does little damage anymore.

This parts book issue is something that Kevin needs to address. One side is that there is a truth to every issue somewhere. The other is that the parts book is factory documentation and the exhibitor should be allowed to reference it as proof. In the example you gave, he was providing his best evidence but, as you point out, not the best evidence. I believe that the battery box cover is but one of many issues like this going forward. I have the ribbed covers on all four of my 65s and consider it an accessory exempt from judging. If it appears in the Fall 65 accessory catalog, then theoretically, it could have been obtained. The point, however, is more of a problem.

The point is that we have an imbalance in the judging process. If you were judging my bike and explained an issue to me I might accept it, With many of the other judges, I would defend my position with available documents but, more often than not, they would have no defense other than their word. As we progress into the more modern bikes where productions changes abound, the judges will need to be prepared to acknowledge that neither side has a definitive answer. I don't know how this will play out but we will alienate many new members if we do not make some things clearer than they are now.

I hope the board begins a concerted effort to better define some of these judging issues. I have talked with Kevin many times about these issues and I believe he is sincere in wanting to make changes for the better. Our momentum is glacial on a good day, however, so we need to step it up through some motivation process. Maybe this thread will do us owners of 65s some good. I hope the book will, as well. I'm getting all the right help from you guys, that is for sure.

Cheers.

[Chris Haynes]

[QUOTE=gmarakas;71365]I know the judge you are referring to, Chris. He spent a lot of time assuming that his 65 was the only true representation in the world! Fortunately, the word is out on him and he does little damage anymore.

This same judge gigged my UNRESTORED 1965 XLCH for not having the factory hose clamps on the oil lines. You know they ones you have to cut to remove. My contention was that they were a service item, like spark plugs, chains, tires, fuel and oil lines and bulbs, when old cracked rubber oil lines were replaced and screw type clamps used to hold them in place. Kevin, not being a Harley man, questioned him about them and he said they absolutely had to be the original type clamps so Kevin, being his friend, let it stand.
So when I got home I went on the hunt for the original clamps only to find that while they are still available but they are now made differently so they would not be correct. I bought them anyway and installed them on the bike, which is not an easy thing to do as the oil bag must be removed to put the clamps on the bottom. So now it is done and my bike received its Junior First, the highest it can obtain with having the sheet metal repainted. Oh! That brings up another thing this judge got me for. I had repainted the tanks and fenders, which according to Kevin is an automatic six point hit.

I quote from the AMCA Handbook of Judging, "20. An unrestored bike will be scored accordingly if it has parts which have been restored to as-new condition. The finish on parts added to an unrestored bike should show the same degree of wear as the rest of the motorcycle."
BTW, there is no mention on how many points will be deducted for a repaint in the Judging. I expected a six point hit, as that is what Kevin had told me on the phone a few weeks before, but this judge hit me again for having repainted the oil tank. That seems like double jeopardy. Kevin let that one stand too and told me that when he said a six point deduction for tanks and fenders being repainted didn't include oil tanks. What about the oil tank on a JD, VL 45", or Indian? BTW, I can find no mention on how many points will be deducted for a repaint of an unrestored motorcycle in the Handbook of Judging.
I know Kevin is working hard to get things right. More things need to be specified in the handbook. Not just word of mouth as that seem to change.
So what about the statement "The finish on parts added to an unrestored bike should show the same degree of wear as the rest of the motorcycle." If I have my freshly painted parts aged to look like they are original will that pass as original?

[rbenash]

One more for the book would be the correct exhaust shields used - clamp on type.

[Lonnie]

65 primary cover

Did only the '65's have the primary with the grease fitting hole for the compensator? If so, I am installing one on my '66 non-stock bike. I got it cheap because it was cracked at the floorboard mount. From all appearances it had never been refinished and was definitely not polished. I have it repaired and bead blasted.

[Chris Haynes]

With a non stock bike what does it matter? I would use the 1970 and later myself as they have the removable clutch cover so ya don't have to pull the primary to adjust the clutch.
I have a photo of the PROTOTYPE 1966. It has EX numbers on the boss. It does show the plug in the cover.

[Magic]

Grease plug

I believe from what I read that some early 66 FLH's had the compensator grease plug in the primary and all 65 FLH's had them on. I personally never seen one on a 66 original yet. Doesn't mean there wasn't. I could find the referance if need be but this thread is 65FL Merlin in Pa.

[rbenash]

Since we are talking about that plug on the '65 primary (and some say early '66). At an Oley meet a couple years ago an older gentleman I was talking to about '65s and I got into discussing the same thing. He mentioned that he worked in an HD dealership as a mechanic. He said that when the later models '66 and later came out HD stopped providing the replacement '65 cover with the plug hole, but provided a shop note or something like that which provided a template or instructions to place and drill, tap an inspection plug hole in the '66 up casting without the hole to convert them for use on a '65.

Can anyone confirm if this is true, or even have a copy of that shop note or guide he referred to?

Also wondering if there was a conversion guide for the '66 timing cover to convert/drill to use it on the '65.

[gmarakas]

There is a shop note for the template and not all 65 FLHs had the grease hole for the compensator sprocket. The compensating sprocket was part of the F-1 King of the Highway upgrade package. If you didn't have the upgrade, you didn't have the sprocket. I have several primary covers with the correct part number that have no hole for the grease.

Cheers.

[rbenash]

Sure would be nice (for me) to have a copy of that shop note. Anyone have one they could fax or scan and share????

[rbenash]

Anyoe have a copy of the shop note George refers to above?

[T. Cotten]

shock studs?

A topic that I would find of great help would be to sort out the '65 shock studs with proper dimensions. (My stash pile is confusing with Duo and Chubble studs tossed in.)

Apparently the end that secured the rear crash bar was changed three times? (Perhaps twice in '65 alone...?)

Thanks in advance,


....Cotten

[Magic]

Is this still happening?

Did ya recieve the copies of the 1965 lineup in the Enthuisist that I had sent you George a few months ago? I thought this thread would of kept moving with such intrest. Merlin in Pa.