54 KHK in the gallery...

[thefrenchowl]

Hi,

If the lower bracket had the stem re-angled at 54 KH 2250, then the upper bracket would have to have changed also, or the holes wouldn't line up.

Not quite, Henesse, the top bracket for a while was the K one rewelded and remachined.

My 54 KHK 2540 is fitted with both these 2 reworked parts...

I have posted my top tree somewhere on your site in the past, but where??? Here it is again:



Patrick

[hennesse]

Not quite, Henesse, the top bracket for a while was the K one rewelded and remachined.
My 54 KHK 2540 is fitted with both these 2 reworked parts...

Patrick,

My point exactly - the welded area on the pictured top bracket moves the hole for the stem to match the re-angled stem on the bottom bracket. But these "new" parts weren't really new at all - they were just re-worked 52-53 parts - just like the majority of 1954 frames were just reworked 1952-1953 frames.

They had to give these re-worked parts new part numbers so they could tell the difference between the original 52-53 parts and the "new" (re-worked) 1954 parts.

Along with this, the Fork panel cover changed from a 46298-52 (with a hole for the stem) to a 46298-52A (with a "V" for the stem). The "V" allowed the cover to be used on both the original 52-53 brackets and the reworked ones. The first covers were just reworked versions of the 52-53. Later they removed the flipper detents, but that didn't affect what they fit, and the number didn't change.

BTW, your 54 KHK 2540 wasn't early 1954 - it was very late 1954 - like August 54. According to The Legend Begins, there were 1579 KH/KHK produced in 1954. Since serial numbers started at 1000, the very last 1954 was about 54 KH 2578, and yours was only about 40 bikes from the end of 1954 production.

[thefrenchowl]

I do agree, but these 54 KH do throw a lot of spanners in the works...

I would have thought that by early 54, mid model year, they would have had all these bits sorted, ie trap doors on all models and properly cast trees as well???

I can't see the 4 founders being happy having to use reworked bits to keep production flowing nicely...

Wait till you see the engine photos of the 55 KHK I just bought... more questions and no answers... And I've been living with these beasts since 1987...

; - ) Patrick

[JerrryR]

So Dave how do you figure my 554-3221 belly numbers fit in with the production of Ks in 54 and what your calling later in the run numbers?
JerryR

[thefrenchowl]

Jerry,

Have you got the 6 bolts/conical dowels or the Sportster type 4 bolt/cylindrical dowels on your 54 KH 18xx??

Patrick

[hennesse]

I do agree, but these 54 KH do throw a lot of spanners in the works...

Patrick,
Some people say the '36 Knuckleheads are the hardest Harleys to restore. They had many one-year, half-year, quarter-year changes. But the 54 KHs seem to be worse. At least the Knucks didn't look like a fleet of born-again choppers with cut and re-welded frames...

I think the problem was that 52-53 K sales were very disappointing - only about 2000 sold each of those years. When they introduced the Model 125 ("Hummer") in 1948, they sold over 10,000 the first year, and I suspect they figured the Ks would repeat that success, and were sorely disappointed. For 1954, not only did they bump the engine size by almost 140cc, they tried to "improve" just about everything else on the bike - all at the same time. I can see the Engineering department running around like a bunch of chickens with their heads cut off.

Stroking the engine to 888cc seems to have gone over without a hitch, but many other things ran into problems. It now appears that the trapdoor idea ran into some kind of production problem. Harley changed the transmission mainshaft and rear wheel sprockets at the beginning of the year, then changed the rear wheel sprocket back after about 688 bikes (debatable, see Technical: Sprockets. Brake shoes and miscellaneous parts changed at the beginning of the year. Oil tank changed, along with the feed line. Many more changes that I can't remember now...

On the front-end: They changed the frame rake at about the beginning of the year. That apparently improved handling, but apparently not enough, so they changed the trail (is that technically correct?) with the re-worked triple trees late in the year. The 52-53s had 19" wheels. 54 had either 19" or 18". Probably not a good idea to have two different wheels sizes while trying to tune the front-end geometry. Only 18" were avaibale in 1955. The fork stem nut/sleeve changed after about 800 bikes. They dropped the fork tube covers at the beginning of the year, adding fork boots, and move the felt fork oil seals from the top of the lower slider to the top of the boots.

Despite all these "improvements", 1954 sales dropped about 500 units from the 1953 level. Then in 1955, sales dropped almost 500 more. It's amazing that they kept on producing them. Well, not totally amazing. The Triumphs and BSAs were selling quite well, and Harley needed to offer competition, even if they weren't succeeding quite as planned. Indian had given up the ghost sometime during 1953, and Harley needed to fill the niche left by the departure of Indian's light-middleweight 440cc (later 500cc) vertical twins.

The KH had to stay alive, or Harley would have totally abandoned the middleweight market, a move that might have caused the company to fold, given weak sales for the heavyweights, and rapidly declining sales for their lightweights.

So the 1954 KHs were a nightmare for Harley engineering back then, and they remain a nightmare for us today. But Harley persevered, and ultimately achieved great success in the middleweight market. We may curse our confounded 1954 KH and KHKs, but with some perseverance, we too will achieve success. At least, that's what I keep telling myself...

[hennesse]

...they tried to "improve" just about everything else...

Here is one 1954 model that needs no improvement...

[sportsterpaul]

Wow, the mystery deepens. My 1954MY 3J frame (October 1953) sounds like it would be early 1954 model year production, but the frame is not welded and it looks like the triple clamp is not either, though hard to see with the tin on. I can see that the front end is the parallel triple tree geometry, which jibes with the later frame.

Now we all have to realize that these are 60-year-old machines, and who knows what was really made with what, and what has been re-stamped or changed, maybe at the dealer or 20 previous owners. Still, now I am thinking that maybe they did have un-welded frames and triple clamps ready for early 1954 production, and made bikes that way. Meanwhile they waited either for the welding re-work, or to decide if they should sell reworked frames and triple clamps. Especially if sales were bad, you can imagine them saying "OK, lets weld up that old stock we had and our service parts stock, and sell it as new 1954 production."

Dave's description of chaos is right. When I was at Ford, we changed components for 4 or 5 years, and then did the body change. It was rough in 1976 since management wanted to downsize the trucks, but the radio and the steering column and the heater were all the same size. And the MBA idiot product planners would not give us an inch in glove box size, or a degree in AC performance, so we had to keep the ducts big. It was chaos.

My buddy works at Intel. He says they call it "tick-tock". They change the process one year, and the chip's circuitry the next. They never try to do both at once-- it would be chaos.

JerryR wrote me that my simplistic model year chart needed a big disclaimer-- he had 17 frame types in K-models alone. Boy was he right.

[JerrryR]

Hi SportsterPaul,
Here is what I think is going on, I believe at this time that there are 14 versions of K frames used between 52 and 56. To be fair some of these changes were as minor as no frame date code to a frame date code or hollow footpeg supports to solid supports. I now believe we could say in addition to the frames produced during a model year for built bikes we also may have up to 3 additional K frames with later (newer) date codes then the model years they would be intended to fit. For example the 56 parts book shows frame 47014-52B as a replacement for 52 through 55 frames (I believe this is the -55 neck casting frame with the reinforced front downtubes). The 56 frame was significantly different and is not shown as a replacement for these earlier models. So if you crashed your 54K in 56 your replacement frame built during the 56 model year run may have had a date code appropriate for a 56K. This is what I think is going on with your early 54K with an unmodified/welded -52 neck casting frame with a 3J frame date code. Yours is the second like this I have run into, the other being a 3I date code. I believe these 3I and 3J date coded frames were replacement frames intended for 52 and 53 K models. Pulling what I am about to say out of my butt here is what I would speculate about your bike, It was crashed early on in the 54 model run and the dealer making the repairs put your bike back together using the earlier 52-53 replacement frame. Depending on your VIN I believe your bike was born with either one of the two versions of welded neck -52 neck casting frames or a -52A neck casting frame. See image below.

I3 Optimized.jpg (160.21 KiB) Viewed 13890 times

I3 Optimized.2.jpg (181.84 KiB) Viewed 13890 times

Welded Neck -52 Early and Late and -52A Castings with Date Codes.jpg (111.82 KiB) Viewed 13890 times

Even though this frame change would have made your rake and trail different I don't believe the factory was terrible concerned with this issue. This is a matter for a whole different thread. To make my point about the factory lack of concern on maintaining original rake and trail as built consider this, we could argue when the neck rake changed but I think we all would agree that by 56 it had changed from the 52-53 profile. In 56 if you ordered a replacement frame for your 52K they sold you the 47014-52B replacement frame with the newer frame rake angle then the 52-53 frame originally had. These are just my best guesses at what was going on, I have to confess the more I discover the less confident I become about saying anything with certainty. By the way if you don't mind sharing, the first couple numbers of your VIN and belly numbers might prove useful.
Take care,
jerryR

[thefrenchowl]

Hi Jerry,

I went to have a look again at my K frame, unstamped.

Hard to notice, on the area outlined on your photo, there is a big and nice weld running just where the web meet the round, on both sides. The steering column also shows signs of a modification to the outside mould...



It's too dark in the garage to make decent photos, I'll try to push it out tomorrow...

On this other photo:



How many have you seen with this kind of welding? (I've seen plenty on badly raked choppers mind you ; - ( )

I cannot beleive this was done at the factory, it is so ugly????

Have you also noticed the tendance for the K frame to grow taller as we near the Sportster switch over?

I had to butcher one K frame, as cast, no weld, no year code, (t'was raced as a KR in them days and cut up already here and there to save weight and loose rigidity...) when I mounted a Sportster engine in it, the tank cast bracket underneath had to go. And I still had to insert the rear head rotated 90 degrees to pass over the fire ring, then align...

On this one I still have, the same Sportster engine fitted without any trouble... So it is definitively taller than the other one...

Patrick