the I-beam style previously used, and in
1946 the damping on the springer front
fork receives a shock absorber for further
assistance, though this was an option.
The 1948 Panheads were available in 61
or 74 cubic versions, and marked the last
year – until modern times – that a springer
front fork was used on a production solo
Big Twin model.
However, the WL sidevalve 750s carried
it through from 1937 to the 1952 model.
Then there is a big gap until the Motor
Company decided to resurrect the springer
for the 1988 model year. Now, a source
close to the factory told me that just after
they made that decision they found out
that none of their current workforce had
any idea how to build springer front-ends.
Apparently during the AMF years a lot of
procedural paperwork had been chucked
out. Well, that problem was solved by
bringing back in a bloke who had been
involved in building the old forks back inthe day, but there was still the question
of how to update the forks for modern
standards of longevity. The old forks used
bushings at the rockers and these needed to
be greased regularly. So they were replaced
with Teflon spherical bearings and the
forks re-designed to provide four inches of
wheel travel as against the two inches of the
earlier forks.
Apparently re-designing the new
Springer involved more computer-aided-
design and finite computer analysis – a tool
for simulating and analysing engineering
products – than any other component in
the Motor Company’s history up to that
time.
Now this may surprise some readers, but
the revamped Springer front-end works
very well and is the equal of the telescopic
in many respects and superior to it in
others. Say what?
Firstly, when Harley-Davidson engineers
re-worked the Springer they gave it 4 inches
of travel, which equals the 5.1 inch unladen
travel of the Showa telescopic forks of the
Softail Custom, its main rival back in the
day. This is because the travel of telescopic
forks is measured along the angled tubes,
not vertically, so the 5.1 of the Showa unit
in fact yields a bit less than 4 inches of verti-
cal wheel travel.
Score: Springer = 1, Telescopic = 0
Secondly, under braking forces the
telescopic fork dives, with the nose of the
bike being driven down the fork tubes,
whereas the geometry of the Springer
front-end provides a built-in anti-dive
characteristic.
Score: Springer = 2, Telescopic = 0
Thirdly, the Springer fork is extremely
rigid and resists both side loads and bending
stresses better than most telescopic forks.
Score: Springer = 3, Telescopic = 0
Fourthly, the telescopic fork – especially
with the relatively raked out front-end of
Softails – incurs a tremendous amount of
sliding friction where the bending loads
try to kink the tube and slider junction,
particularly at or near full extension. The
Springer suffers none of this effect.
Score: Springer = 4, Telescopic = 0
So, you may ask, why don’t we see
Springers on Moto GP bikes if they’re so
bloody good? Well, weight for a start.
Final score: Springer = 4, Telescopic = 1
This should settle the Springer versus
Telescopic argument once and for all.
Now the first versions of the SpringerHARLEY HISTORY
1948 PanheadWLThe 1988 Evo Springer proved that
modern materials could make a
springer front end perform as
effectively as a telescopic unit.