Foot Clutch measurements

[vph-d]

I pulled out 2 foot pedals and found neither one has a welded pin, both are peened with a distinct button head look. Both pedals also have a taller nerd for the spring, than in the first pictures. I recently replaced the clutch pull rod pivot stud on one of my pedals with a NOS pin. The original pin had a button look, and so does the replacement pin, unlike the first pictures. I think the pedal is repop.
VPH-D

[Rooster]

The most recognizable feature of as repop is the weld on the end of the pivot shaft. OE parts have a nice circular weld, like you see in Scoot's photo, while repops have a full button-looking weld. At least that's what I've seen...........

[vph-d]

That clutch pedal is in awfully good shape, is it a V-Twin repop?
VPH-D

[Rooster]

Being a stamped part, you'll never know the change-over date unless it was documented in a service bulletin or it had some profound change that gave the part a new part #, or through observation of original bikes, there is a change-over date. Who knows ? The original tool and die could have worn out or broke, or the head of engineering didn't like the original shape.

Yes.... another example of some of the strange things the MoCo did. The copy of a factory photo I am lucky enough to have, shows the little 'tab' area for the spring. So that much I am fairly certain that is correct for a '52.

[exeric]

Being a stamped part, you'll never know the change-over date unless it was documented in a service bulletin or it had some profound change that gave the part a new part #, or through observation of original bikes, there is a change-over date. Who knows ? The original tool and die could have worn out or broke, or the head of engineering didn't like the original shape.

[Rooster]

I have 2 that are similar to the one in question and one that has a pronounced spring mounting feature. Hopefully the picture will come through.

These are the two distinctly different 'shapes' that I refer to. I also have the exact same collection as you, exeric.

[cdndewey]

Scoot...Looking at your assembled picture it doesn't look like anything is missing to me. However when I look at it and then look at my 62 I see a difference in the area where the spring attaches. Mine is flatter in front leading up to the spring whereas yours has a pronounced slope down. Also the offset looks like it might be a little greater than mine although it is hard to ascertain from the picture.

[exeric]

I have 2 that are similar to the one in question and one that has a pronounced spring mounting feature. Hopefully the picture will come through.

[Rooster]

Most definitely not the one ending with a -65 part number.

Ahhh.... you mean the one that you showed?

[Rooster]

So with all egos carefully placed aside, we still have two differing shapes in regards to these rocker pedals (other than the dogleg clearance for the starter), and no-one has yet offered a real answer as to why. That's my only interest, is determining why there is this difference, not this "I--me--my" stuff that gets in the way.
Someone pulls a part out of a box, the part is NOS, which is not the same as OEM--- so 25 years after the part was first introduced, it is still being made available by the MoCo, but the stamps have been changed a little over the years, or outsourced to a new vendor. What, that's never happened before?! Is the final answer that both styles are 'correct'?

[exeric]

I must be missing something Scoot, your rocker pedal looks just like a couple of pedals I have.

[Perry Ruiter]

Well that's nice.
The part number for my rocker pedal is 36811-41. Not the same as yours pictured.
Have a nice day.

I thought we were talking about scoot's pedal not yours. I merely opined that I thought it looked like a 36811-65 pedal (albeit possibly with a 36886-41 pin installed) rather than a modified pedal. I have no opinion on your pedal. I haven't seen a picture of it. It could very well have been modified.

Could be the difference between p/n 36811-41 and 36811-65? So which one is "correct for a '64 DuoGlide??

Most definitely not the one ending with a -65 part number.

Here's a page from the 1961-76 Parts Catalog. The shape of the pedal shown sure looks like it has a 'tab' for the spring. But this would be an OEM pedal rather than NOS.........

So the factory didn't update the drawing in the parts book when they changed the part. Your point is? There's no dog leg in the pedal in the parts book drawing either yet you'll rely on it for minutiae like the shape where the spring hooks in. Flip back a few pages in your 76 parts book and look at the transmission case. No ears for mounting the aluminum inner primary. Are you now going to suggest that a tranny case without ears is correct for a Shovelhead because that's what's shown in the parts book? The parts books are rife with illustrations that don't exactly match the part they represent ... Perry

[Rooster]

Thanks Chris.

[Chris Haynes]

Could be the difference between p/n 36811-41 and 36811-65? So which one is "correct for a '64 DuoGlide??

The -41 is correct for the '64. Things had to be changed in 65 to clear the electric start primary cover. Even the mousetrap was changed on the footshift models.

[Rooster]

Could be the difference between p/n 36811-41 and 36811-65? So which one is "correct for a '64 DuoGlide??

Here's a page from the 1961-76 Parts Catalog. The shape of the pedal shown sure looks like it has a 'tab' for the spring. But this would be an OEM pedal rather than NOS.........