Foot Clutch measurements

[scoot]

I just bought this piece and noticed it has the spring tab cut off. Can someone give me some measurements to aid in how much I need to weld on and where to locate the hole?
Thanks

[Rooster]

I have a few 'original' specimens to choose from; one looks just like yours, and the other still has the tab. I also have a repop that looks like yours, which makes me wonder if there isn't a couple different designs here... However, a quick check in Palmer's book just shows the different doglegs, and of course the shorter pivot shaft. All show the 'tab' that the spring attaches to.

I can trace my part and mail you the tracing, or scan it and email. Send me a PM with your preference. This will be no trouble at all, as the parts are not on the bike.
I'll also have to repair the one I have that has been 'modified'.

Rooster

[scoot]

When I was mocking this up, it seemed the clutch was tilled way too far back. When I checked the Palmers manual, I saw all of them have a raised tab for the lower spring mount. Upon closer inspection of my piece, I could see the jagged cut marks were mine was removed for unknown reasons.

[D.Mac]

Rocker Clutch

Scoot,
Your spring is hooked up correctly in your pic. What you're missing is the pin for the clutch rod- "foot lever pin OEM#36886-41". This is a replaceable part as is the upper spring stud- "foot lever bracket spring stud OEM#36871-40" You can look for NOS pieces, or buy re-pops. I picked up re-pops to replace my worn pieces from Lonnie at Antique Cycle Supply, they fit and work just fine. I think there is at least one good close-up picture of the complete rocker clutch installed on a bike in Palmers.
Doug.

[nuklhd]

scoot, that looks like whats on my 64.(real similar) like dmac said as long as you can hook up the rod to the back you should be ok.

[Rooster]

Not to start an argument, but merely for the sake of discussion--- the pedal shown in Scoots pic has had the spring tab cut off. It is not "correct". Take a good look in your Spare Parts Catalog, you will not see any pedals that look like that.
If the spring wore through the tab, a backyard repair was probably to hack the remains of the 'tab' off and drill a new hole for the spring. Like I say, I have one that has had that done, and I also have a good one with the tab intact. It's easy to hold one in each hand and compare.
As for replacement pivot rods, Judy (zimalady) at Bills Custom Cycle sells the complete repair kit (including bushings) for $20 or so.

[Perry Ruiter]

Not to start an argument, but merely for the sake of discussion--- the pedal shown in Scoots pic has had the spring tab cut off. It is not "correct". Take a good look in your Spare Parts Catalog, you will not see any pedals that look like that.
If the spring wore through the tab, a backyard repair was probably to hack the remains of the 'tab' off and drill a new hole for the spring. Like I say, I have one that has had that done, and I also have a good one with the tab intact. It's easy to hold one in each hand and compare.
As for replacement pivot rods, Judy (zimalady) at Bills Custom Cycle sells the complete repair kit (including bushings) for $20 or so.

NOS outta the box. 36811-65. Doesn't look like a "backyard repair" to me ... Perry

[Rooster]

NOS outta the box. 36811-65. Doesn't look like a "backyard repair" to me ... Perry

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

[Rooster]

I have a few 'original' specimens to choose from; one looks just like yours, and the other still has the tab. I also have a repop that looks like yours, which makes me wonder if there isn't a couple different designs here...

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

[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.........

[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]

Thanks Chris.

[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

[exeric]

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

[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'?