Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19

Thread: Is this a oem fender correct for 1940 big twinn

  1. #11

    Re: Is this a oem fender correct for 1940 big twinn

    it was a very nice repop.
    my original has the 3 holes for the chain guard area panel section to mount to. that one did not.

  2. #12

    Re: Is this a oem fender correct for 1940 big twinn

    Quote Originally Posted by 1950panhead View Post
    The original braces are .625" x .166", I don't have any replicant fenders however other reproductions are far from this.
    My replicant front fender brace is .626 wide by .157 thick.

  3. #13

    Re: Is this a oem fender correct for 1940 big twinn

    I have just browsed my stash of old braces
    what I have found : there is huge tolerance on this part dimensions
    as can be expected on cold rolled stock
    I have eaven found one set which is different in thickness by 0.008" on a distance of 2"
    Measured only unrusted and unbent areas:

    width from 0,563" up to 0,628"
    thickness from 0,153" up to 0,181"

    I have measured early VL, late VL
    early knuckle and late knuckle braces

    and there is no correlation, on every type I have noticed
    hi and low thicknesses and width
    also thickness and width are not corelated with each other

    looks that whatever came to factory from supplier was used

    hence: dont judge basing on one part

    seems like replicant is somewhere in middle of range

    best
    MOA
    Last edited by marcina; 08-14-2017 at 10:01 AM.

  4. #14

    Re: Is this a oem fender correct for 1940 big twinn

    I learned in machinist training that a part with fractional dimension is measuresd with a ruler.A part with a decimal is measured by what dimension was specified example: .05 or .005...........I'm sure they mesured brace stock with a ruler

  5. #15

    Re: Is this a oem fender correct for 1940 big twinn

    One of my customers recently bought a 1940 rear fender that needed much work..he paid 2K for it

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Sarasota, Florida
    Posts
    5,550

    Re: Is this a oem fender correct for 1940 big twinn

    I've worked with a lot of cold rolled nominal stock and it is always very close to size. If it's off by over .005" it is junk material, from a bad supplier. From a production point of view, I would think those variation in stock size would wreak havoc with H-Ds tooling, and fixtures. There is no way H-D was going to wrestle with poor fitting fenders. Their sheet metal parts, and stamping have always been spot on, from my experience.

  7. #17

    Re: Is this a oem fender correct for 1940 big twinn

    This is one nice thing about HD compared to Indian for example
    their sheet metal FITS!

    you are right

    but it do not change fact that they have used flat stock
    in various sizes
    mayby several suppliers?
    no idea
    but no matter which size they have used
    it was formed properly

    MOA

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Sarasota, Florida
    Posts
    5,550

    Re: Is this a oem fender correct for 1940 big twinn

    I did my machinist apprenticeship with a tool and die maker who designed, and made all the fixturing for a production manufacturer. His fixtures were designed for nominal stock, and oversized, or undersized stock would either not fit his fixtures, or holes would be off center. For seamless integration, and spare parts, that is not acceptable. Harley-Davidson was better at this than any manufacturer I have experienced, and they would not have been successful if their parts didn't fit. Fender braces are a critical part, and I can't over emphasis that. I've worked on many Harley fenders, and the slightest angular variations in the bends, and radii of the braces, and/or hole mis-alignments a have major impact on fit. If the braces are even slightly off, it will either look like ***** or not even fit. There are always anomalies in manufacturing, but material sizes are something that can easily be controlled. For some parts, that can vary, but not for fender braces. I don't mean to be obstinate about this, but I would have to see a factory blue print from H-D to see if they accepted a .065" width tolerance in fender brace stock.

  9. #19

    Re: Is this a oem fender correct for 1940 big twinn

    no matter what they have accepted
    measurments does not lie

    i can imagine tooling for bending these which does
    not care about this differencies

    its not a rocket science ��

    I have VL frame which has ( from factory)
    incorrectly brazed front footboard strap axle mount
    and to correct it - foodboard strap axle has been bent
    by MoCo ...
    I guess it was out of any tolerances from their blueprints ��

    we are tend to be anal and picky about
    these old bikes
    but they were what they were
    nothing more

    MOA

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Wanted rear bumper for 1940 big twinn
    By paddy in forum Motorcycles & Parts Wanted
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 07-28-2017, 10:14 PM
  2. 1940 Indian Chief Seat - correct or not?
    By NiteOwl in forum Indian Motorcycle
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-06-2012, 09:50 AM
  3. Is this a correct rear fender for my 61 ch?
    By brianbbs67 in forum Harley 1936-1964
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 10-08-2012, 08:37 PM
  4. Correct 49 Rear Fender?
    By panz4ever in forum Sheet Metal, Paint & Finish
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 06-05-2009, 05:15 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •