1965 Panhead Book Project

[portagepan]

The early top shock mounts were prone to breaking, so they upped the diameter. I think it was a dealer update from the shop dope book.
Mike

[gmarakas]

Christmas Greetings

Hi All,

Sorry for the lull in the thread. The project is alive and well and I have returned from H-D Mecca with a wealth of materials. Hi Magic, I did get the Enthusiast copies and they were really helpful.

I have been busy turning around a 65 Pan for Eustis. We stripped it down and turned it around except for paint in 7 weeks. Paint will be ready right after the first of the year. Stop by in Eustis to see the finished product. We have another one on the lift already but it won't be ready until mid-summer.

Kyle and I hope all of you have a great holiday and we look forward to seeing all of you in Eustis.

Cheers!

[rbenash]

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.

OK, so I'll bite and revive the discussion

1. If there was a shop note regarding modifying the post '65 primary cover to add the plug, does anyone have any more detail specific to or a copy of that shop note? If not, would be good to have in your book as a reference.

2. New topic. '65 Footboards. Were they different from the foot boards up to 1964? I have a pair that look like originals (marks showing that they were dipped, which I believe HD did with their FB's). Missing the outside rivet but welded there instead. The inside rivet look like true HD. So it appears to me that 1965 had 1 year foot board. Can anyone else corroborate that?

I also have a set of what I think are first year '66 D boards that I think are also 1 year in that they have the outiside rivet missing with the weld there instead. Inside rivet is there with no weld. I beleive the shovel boards went to full welding outside and inside post 1966?

[rbenash]

OK, so I'll bite and revive the discussion

1. If there was a shop note regarding modifying the post '65 primary cover to add the plug, does anyone have any more detail specific to or a copy of that shop note? If not, would be good to have in your book as a reference.

2. New topic. '65 Footboards. Were they different from the foot boards up to 1964? I have a pair that look like originals (marks showing that they were dipped, which I believe HD did with their FB's). Missing the outside rivet but welded there instead. The inside rivet look like true HD. So it appears to me that 1965 had 1 year foot board. Can anyone else corroborate that?

I also have a set of what I think are first year '66 D boards that I think are also 1 year in that they have the outiside rivet missing with the weld there instead. Inside rivet is there with no weld. I beleive the shovel boards went to full welding outside and inside post 1966?

Ok - this one is just sleeping so I'll add some detail regarding the floorboards. Take a look. These really look OEM. Bought them from an AMCA member who had them for years. He was confident that these were original. Looks like this is a one year or the last year half moon boards. They have the drip marks from dipping into paint has I understand HD did, the flat rivet for the studs/rest. Outside rivet missing but welded. The D boards I pulled off this bike that were placed by one of the previous owners in '68 when he was "modernizing" the bike look like one year '66 boards in that they are the same regarding a single inside rivet on the supports with the outside rivet missing and welded instead. My understanding is that the D boards went to full welded bracket in '67. But my main question is verification that 1965 not only had last year half moon boards but a 1 year aspect as well?





Interested in what you guys think/know about the topic.

[rbenash]

Another "65 ism". One year stacked oil nipple:

[T. Cotten]

Ray!

I've been through more than my share of '65s without ever encountering a 'stacked' nipple such as that.

Is the machine's VIN extremely low?

....Cotten

[rbenash]

Yo Cotten. I know this bike all my life from teenager up (last 3 owners excluding me). I don't know the original owner, but the second owner bought it around 66 or 67. I can get supportive info re that detail from family.

That said - this bike was never pulled apart to this level so I am certain no one touched the pump, breather assembly and connections other than to replace those "pesky" harely clamps with gates (which I will be correcting) :-(

Paul Friebus was also surprised when he found this. Although he said my bike was one of the most original/complete '65's he's seen.

Here's another pic:



Here's a photo of the VIN:

Before:



After:

[Chris Haynes]

Yup, number 640 is very low.

[T. Cotten]

I believe another un-documented production change was a run with 5/16" instead of 3/8" oiltank breather hoses, using a cad screw-bandclamp instead of a pinch-clamp at the motorcase nipple.

Two such machines have come my way.

....Cotten

[rbenash]

I believe another un-documented production change was a run with 5/16" instead of 3/8" oiltank breather hoses, using a cad screw-bandclamp instead of a pinch-clamp at the motorcase nipple.

Two such machines have come my way.

....Cotten

Interesting. I didn't think there were any pans with band clamps.

[gmarakas]

Hi All

Hi everyone! I haven't been able to get to the forum until now but I see there is plenty of stuff being added.

I will add Cotten's question about the oil breather line with the screw clamp to my next interaction with the archives. The last list was big and this one is getting bigger.

Also glad to see Chris standing his post and keeping everyone honest and standing at attention http://www.antiquemotorcycle.org/bbo...lies/smile.gif

Anyway. I haven't run across a stacked nipple like the one in the picture either. That's really a new one on me.

Ray is certainly keeping the fires burning about 65s. We'll get there eventually but every time I think we are getting somewhere on an issue, a new layer appears. As an example, we have pretty good evidence that suggests there where four production changes issued for the 65 in one year! And, there may be more than that. Anyway, I'm writing it all down and organizing the debate, if nothing else. So far, we have had archivists shrug their shoulders more than once. It's kinds scary when they do that ;-)

Catch up with you later.

Cheers,

[flthead]

'65 vin ?

Yup, number 640 is very low.

just curious as to where vin # 65flh157* falls in the production run ? and how's the book coming... when can we expect it

[Chris Haynes]

just curious as to where vin # 65flh157* falls in the production run ? and how's the book coming... when can we expect it

Depending on who you are arguing with the production number started with 1000 or 1001. So subtract 1000 from your 157* and you have your number.
So with that being said, is your bike an unmolested original? If so which oil pump and clamps does yours have?
PS I just don't understand the reluctance to telling your number and not the * instead of the 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9.

[flthead]

i bought it when it was 30 years old with 5600 miles from the original owner ,was sitting since about '72 in his garage . he rode for Linden police ,so he didn't ride it much

[paddy]

just wondering if anything ever happened with this book being published,thanks