65 FLH King of the Highway fit and finish

[Rubone]

Again, those are NOT part numbers, merely casting numbers and will not match the numbers in the parts book. It sounds like your compensator is the correct type. Now, do you know if the transmission is correct for the year of the bike? Looking at your engine shaft behind the compensator the space should be barely longer than the bearing retainer nut. If it is a longer type it will stick out to far and move the whole assembly outboard by about a quarter inch, enough to cause fitment problems and CHAIN alignment problems. All '65 to '69 inner and outer primaries will interchange with no difference in fit regarding the primary drive components. the number changes apply to minor things like the plug for greasing the compensator, etc.
Robbie

[JSB55]

OK ... http://i560.photobucket.com/albums/s...dsprockets.jpg

The sprocket is 24 teeth, stamped "55A" on the inside, as is the Sliding Cam that mates with it.

What I thought was the part number on the inner primary is also shown.

Thanks to Rub or anyone else who can help me sort this out.

John

[JSB55]

Trans drops right in and mates up just fine, and it had a -65 number stamped on the bottom.

And my chain alignment is right on the money. Clutch hub fiber plate to inner primary gasket surface is exactly 2 inches. With the spacer installed, the shoulder on the large piece far left in the photo, which slides over the smaller shaft is also exactly 2 inches from the gasket surface.

With all bolted up, the chain is exactly the same distance from the gasket surface every place I can measure.

Based on your comments above, I'm starting to think that the motor builder used a sprocket shaft that was too long. He rebuilt the lower end that was in the bike, and may not have measured the shaft ???

If I put a straight edge across the gasket surface of the inner primary (installed) the sprocket shaft comes about 1/16 shy of that plane. Now that you have brought it to my attention, I can see that the sprocket shaft in the FL (which does not have a compensator) is about 3/8 to 1/2 inch shorter. Would you and others agree that my problem is the too long sprocket shaft?

John

[JSB55]

Actually, having reviewed Palmer, I can see from the photo on page 175 that mine is probably a 70-71 sprocket shaft.

Not being a motor guy, I don't know whether it's possible to replace that shaft without a complete tear down and splitting the cases, but it sure looks like it, as that shaft probably takes monster torque to install and affects the flywheel truing.

Answers, anyone?

John

[Rubone]

Regretfully John, it involves a complete teardown! No way around it.
Robbie

[JSB55]

I was afraid of that after reviewing Palmer, and noting that the shaft is keyed to the flywheel.

Now my question is, can I put a shovel outer primary cover on it and run it for the summer, holding off on the teardown til winter?

Per the photo on Palmer page 175, the splined part of the 70-71 shaft is where the bulk of the extra length is compared to the 65 shaft, but it seems to me that the the Sprocket Shaft Nut (that's what the book calls the threaded pipe with the 4-holed flat end) may not tighten down far enough to properly load the big spring that forces the two parts of the compensator together. I don't know how critical that is.

Chain alignment seems not to be an issue, as I have it spacered so the chain is equidistant from the outer primary gasket surface front to back.

[Rubone]

You should be able to do that if the chainline is indeed correct. And if it is correct with that long engine shaft, then you most likely have a '70 and later transmission mainshaft as well! Otherwise you clutch hub, clutch shell assembly would be sitting much deeper than your engine shaft. Sounds like a major project when you get ready to do it right!
Robbie

[JSB55]

Hmmm... maybe I am still missing something.

Looking at the photos in Palmer, it appears that the flywheel end of the various sprocket shafts from 55 into the 70s are identical in length. The smooth area on the inner part of the shaft seems to be the same length for all years, whereas the splined area is longer beginning in 70, and the threaded end possibly a tad longer also.

The motor sprocket slides all the way onto the smooth part of the sprocket shaft, and the clutch hub all the way onto the trans shaft, so I don't see why some extra length on the *outer* ends would affect chain alignment, which is determined by how far the chain is from the *inner* end of the respective shafts (thus the need for spacers).

I *do*, however, see how the extra length could affect the functioning of the compensator, since the spring is not loaded as much as when the shaft is shorter, and the nut consequently compressing it more.

My main concern at this point is whether I can ride it this way for now, and in documenting the error to the motor builder now, so I don't end up paying him again later to fix his own error in installing the too long sprocket shaft.

John

[JSB55]

To clarify the above further:

The splined shaft far left in my photo slides over the sprocket shaft, mates with its splines, and bottoms against the shoulder on the sprocket shaft, which is the same distance from the flywheel 55 through the 70s. Oddly enough, I don't see that outer shaft listed anywhere in my parts books, but it has a thin spacer behind it (in my case either integral to that outer shaft, or welded to it by age) such that when all is buttoned up, the chain is aligned.

The sprocket portion of the compensator then indexes over the outer shaft, and bottoms against it's shoulder, and is followed by the outer part of the compensator, spring, and finally the "nut". There is also an outer spacer that covers the splined area at the very outside of the inner shaft that would otherwise be exposed, and provides a place for the "nut" to bottom, if I could ever get it that tight (I can't manually).

Since the smooth part of the sprocket shaft is the critical part as to chain location, I'm not visualizing how the transmission mainshaft comes into play.

And in my admittedly fogged mental state, it seems to me that the splined area on the sprocket shaft and outer sleeve being too long affects only how tightly I can crank down the "nut", and thus load the spring, but I can't visualize how it affects where the chain is (that seems to be controlled by the spacer closest to the engine case - unless low tension on the spring allows the whole mechanism to slide back and forth, thus moving the chain around).

Regardless, however, I need to know whether it's safe to run as is with a shovel outer cover, in case I decide to go that route rather than tear it all down again now after 18 months of building it to where it is.

John

[silentgreyfello]

1914-1965 footboard mats were rivited.

They didn't rivet in 1914-1916.

[Rooster]

Wow, what a shame, JSB.
I'm not going to comment on the technical aspect, I don't know anyone that knows this stuff any better than Robbie, and that's no joke. The late panhead-early shovelhead years are a 'gray zone' in my area of experience anyway... (I 'know' what I ride, and I ride a panhead and a later-70's shovelhead.)
But my comment really is this---- if your motor builder is worth his salt, he will tear that motor down and install the correct sprocket shaft, at no charge. Or at least very minimal charge, such as paying for gaskets. All the machine work has been done, so it would be a simple matter of dissassembly and reassembly. Yes, the flywheels will need to be split, and re-trued upon assembly. If it was my motor, I would rather have it done when everything was fresh before it was ever fired up, rather than wait 18 months.

If I may share this story-----
Years ago, my riding partner and I had our shovelhead motors rebuilt by a guy who was new to our area and we were just getting to know. We had him do our motors as a step in faith, having never really dealt with the guy before. When we headed out on our first trip, after an initial breal-in period, we were consuming oil at an alarming rate, like a quart every 250-300 miles!
When we got back, we talked to our motor guy. He admitted he set up the tolerances a little loose, as he didn't think we would break the motors in properly, he thought we would go right out and spank them hard.
So what did he do? Went all the way through both motors again, setting them up per specification, and what did he charge us? Zero. That's what called "integrity". Ben got all our work and all our friends work after that.
I'm sorry to have added little technical value to this thread, JSB, but I would have a serious and emotionless discussion with your motor guy. It's one thing to be able to rectify the situation now, but after 18 months people's memory can fade.........

[JSB55]

Thanks for that, Rooster.

Waiting for parts, and waiting for other people (to refurbish the motor, for example) has stretched this project to 18 months from initial tear-down to this point. I have what I consider a perfect replica paint job, all new fasteners thanks to Old Dude, a fully restored Linkert, redone chrome and cad in all the right places, etc, etc, etc.

Now when I thought I was a few hours from the first ride to break things in, I discover this too long sprocket shaft, which I never noticed until I tried to put the cover on.

In retrospect, I recall wondering why the previous owner had a shovel outer primary, but I thought he just liked chrome, since he had also painted the motor blue, painted all the fasteners black, and done a lot of other "custom" (ahem) touches. Now I finally understand why the shovel outer cover was there.

To make matters worse, a little research proves that Rub's knowledge is in fact encyclopedic on the matter. Palmer makes no real mention of this issue, but "What Fits What on HD" talks about the fact that the 70-71 sprocket shaft (as well as the 72 which probably would not retrofit to 60s era flywheels) is normally used with a -70 trans mainshaft for chain alignment, and since my alignment appears perfect, it appears the former owner changed both the sprocket shaft and mainshaft to -70 for who knows what reason.

Ah, well...

*sigh*


.

[JSB55]

While we're at it, can anybody tell me if there is an easy way to tell the -70 trans mainshaft from the earlier one without tearing things all apart and measuring (and where I can find the dimensions documented)?

[Perry Ruiter]

While we're at it, can anybody tell me if there is an easy way to tell the -70 trans mainshaft from the earlier one without tearing things all apart and measuring (and where I can find the dimensions documented)?

Year ago, Easyriders published the attached chart ... Perry

[JSB55]

COOL - thanks, Perry!

You might know - my pushrod measures 13 3/4, which is right between the 13 5/8 listed for 65-69 and 14" listed for 70-71.