Tuesday, November 24, 2015

Giving Thanks 2015

Thanksgiving. Is it a meal, or is it a holiday? Or is it a holiday known for its meal? Or is it just possibly, for some, an attitude?

I am afraid that for the majority of Americans, Thanksgiving Day is no different than any other day of the year in respect to their treatment of the Creator of the universe. In other words, there will be little or no thought given to the one who gives us everything. Oh, perhaps a grandpa or an uncle who grew up when life was different will bow his head and give thanks for the meal at the family get together, but that is about it. Many will not even hear those words because they are so intent on the feast that follows.

In fact, the politically correct way to celebrate Thanksgiving is to say you are thankful for blessings all the while being careful not to mention to who it is that you are thankful. That way random chance gets just as much glory as the King of kings and Lord of lords.

But, I would like to offer a suggestion for this Thanksgiving Day. Let's give thanks where thanks is due. Let's try to adopt the attitude displayed in the following:

Make a joyful noise unto YaHWeH, all ye lands.
Serve YaHWeH with gladness: come before his presence with singing.
Know ye that YaHWeH he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.
Enter into his gates with thanksgiving, and into his courts with praise: be thankful unto him, and bless his name.
YaHWeH is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations.
Psalm 100

This is a replay of a post I wrote in 2010.  I add this note at the end, rather than the beginning, in the hope that I have tricked you into reading it a second time. 

Thursday, October 29, 2015

Valve Stem Protrusion, Part 2: The Knucklehead

Now that you have been introduced to the basics of valve stem protrusion specification and how they pertain to Panheads and Shovelheads, let's go back to the beginning, so to speak, and look at what most would concede to be Harley's first modern OHV engine, the Knucklehead.

Time to "fess up." The question of the valve stem protrusion specification for a Knucklehead is one I have never been able to come up with a definitive answer to, and I have been pondering it for about 30 years. Apparently the factory did not feel it was important enough to publish (at least anywhere I have been able to find) or just overlooked it.

One of the figures I've seen offered (it was on the Internet, so it must be true!) is that the factory spec was 1.575-1.580" measuring from the shoulder on the guide to the tip of the valve. While this may be correct, no source was cited. Did it come from a factory drawing or was it info passed on from someone's step-uncle who once heard it from a guy who knew someone who worked on Harleys a lot under a shade tree in the back yard to supplement the income from his day job changing tires and doing oil changes at the local Texaco station?  Either way, this spec, to be accurate, would need to take into account the differences in the thickness between stock and reproduction gaskets that go under the lower spring cup. I cannot be sure what the OEM gasket thickness was, but from supplier to supplier I have seen as much as .030" difference in the thickness. Then if you use 2 gaskets under the intakes as the manual calls for, you have doubled any error. Incidentally, if the factory was able to hold a .005" tolerance on valve stem protrusion in the '30s and '40s, they were doing far better than what is seen from them today (admittedly a very real possibility).

Another of the "specs" I have seen given (also on the Internet, so it also must be true!) for Knuck stem protrusion is 15/16" above the top of the valve guide for the exhaust and 7/8" for the intake. Even if a source for that info was given, it would be meaningless without the dimensions of the OEM guide top.  The guides available today are not even the same shape as the originals above the flange, let alone the same height.  True as it may have been at one time, it is about as useful as giving directions to a stranger that include the phrase "turn left where farmer Smith's big red barn used to be."

One other "spec" I have seen published in a recent book, also without a source quoted, is intake 1.525" minimum/1.570" maximum and exhaust 1.575" minimum/1.620" maximum. That would also suffer from being at the mercy of gasket thickness.

I also tend to think that any stem protrusion "spec" that is given with intake and exhaust being different one from the other is probably suspect, because that would mean that without shimming, the spring installed height and seat pressure would be different intake to exhaust. I am quite sure valve spring shims were not factory installed.  My guess is that those "specs" were extrapolated due to the difference in overall valve length on Knuckles, intake verses exhaust.  Either that, or valve seat pressure difference intake to exhaust was considered acceptable by the factory.  The difference of .050" of installed height would work out to about 16 pounds more seat pressure on the intakes if KPMI's stock replacement springs are indeed made to exact OEM spec as advertised.  That is probably within the realm of possibility also, but again I would like to see a source.

And speaking of extrapolation, or my best guess if you prefer, here is my theory:

There is a chart on page 82 of the Panhead Service Manual 1948-1957 Rigid that lists specs for 18204-36 inner and 18203-36 outer OHV springs. Those would be the stock springs for a Knucklehead.  The chart lists a compressed length of 1.40625" for the outer spring under a column labeled "valve closed" along with a "valve open" length of 1.0625".  That leads me to believe that the 1.406 figure would be within the acceptable range for spring installed height. Adding the lift of a stock cam, which the same manual lists as .343" for a Knuckle on page 89, to the open height of 1.0625" gives 1.4055" which matches the 1.40625" after allowing for rounding up or down.  Now, the question becomes, does this spring installed height reflect a minimum or maximum valve stem protrusion, or is it somewhere in the middle?

Back to that table of specs.  According to it, the "Knuck" springs (we'll call them -36 springs from here on out) were used on all overhead valve engines (read: Knuck and Pan) except FLH (the higher compression 74"). That reveals a bit of a discrepancy hidden in the specifications.  Since the same valves, collars and keepers were used for both FL and FLH Panheads, it is safe to say that the -36 springs could safely be installed at the same height as the stronger FLH spring set, especially given the fact that there is no separate stem protrusion spec given for Panheads, FL versus FLH.  But the "valve closed" spring height for the FLH spring is 1.375 rather than the 1.406 of the -36 spring.  That would put the acceptable spring installed height of both spring sets somewhere between those two figures.

Interestingly, if we give the 1.375 figure a +/- tolerance of .005" we come up with exactly the 1.370" to 1.380" recommended installed height for KPMI's "stock replacement" Knucklehead spring sets, which are claimed to be "manufactured to exact O.E.M specifications."

Now it happens that I have measured enough Knuck valves, springs and collars over the years to confidently say that the spring installed height on a Knuckle will be .200" less than the valve stem protrusion measured from the tip to the top of the lip on the guide.  That .200" figure is valid when using stock spring collars and valves with stock keeper groove location.  It is also subject to the slight variation resulting from manufacturing tolerances.  That means if we were to take the 1.370" spring installed height and add .200" to it, we could safely extrapolate (there's that word again) a 1.570" minimum valve stem protrusion.  If we then want to take a stab at a maximum stem protrusion, I would suggest the same .045" spread that the Pans and Shovels use, resulting in a maximum spec of 1.615". 

But remember now, while that may provide a stock stem protrusion spec (depending on whether you buy into the multiple assumptions and extrapolations which I have made or not), this will only get you to the correct valve spring installed height.   One still needs to take into account the discrepancy in thickness of the gaskets under the spring cups if you are really concerned with getting the valve to exactly the same relationship to the head and rocker arms as when it left the factory.  Back here in the real world, though, the effects of the gasket thickness on rocker geometry are minimal.

In fact, I would go back to what I presented in the previous stem protrusion post about how changes in valve lift affect theoretically correct rocker arm geometry. If you are running a stock lift cam, then you are done. As I mentioned, according to the Harley's service manuals, the lift of a Knuckle cam is .343".  If anyone is wondering about this seemingly odd number, just convert that figure into a fraction and you will see it was quite obviously a rounding off of 11/32" - over the years Harley has been very comfortable with the use of fractions in their design parameters.   Incidentally, if you notice that I have been playing fast and loose with the terms cam lift/valve lift here when writing about Knuckles, its because the 1:1 rocker ratio actually makes those figures interchangeable, unlike other OHV Big Twins.

But if you simply read cam manufacturer's literature you might not realize that the stock lift was only .343".  The Andrews "S" grind, which is advertised as a stock replacement for restorations is .355" lift.  Lieneweber's mildest Knuck cam, the "0", is still a bolt-in but has .365" lift.  Back when Sifton was Sifton, their only Knuck grind came in at a whopping .450" lift.  Our friends in Viola seem to be the only manufacturer who makes a true stock replacement grind (even if it is listed as .346" lift). 

Using my "theoretically correct rocker geometry" method of adding 1/2 the increase in valve lift over stock to the minimum and maximum stem protrusion specs, one can see that even the mild bolt in cams add a little wiggle room.  The 110 Sifton on the other hand, coming in at .106" more lift than stock adds a full .053" to the specs.  In other words, if you accept my extrapolation (had to get that word in one more time) your stem protrusion specs would go from 1.570" minimum/1.615" maximum, all the way to 1.623" minimum/1.668" maximum.  That would, of course, create other issues that would need to be addressed, such as spring pressure and installed height, not to mention top collar to rocker arm and cover clearances.  But all of that will need to wait for another post.

One last point.  the figures I present here are my best estimate based on the numbers we do find in various factory service manuals.  I will be happy to print a correction if someone can provide their source material for conflicting numbers, or provide reasoning that improves on my own.  By no means do I mean any sort of insult to those who have presented different figures.  It is entirely possible that the whole concept of minimum and maximum stem protrusion specs was not even on the factory's radar before the printing of the Panhead service manual, and was merely left to the common sense and/or whims of the re-builder.

And in case anyone is not yet sure, the word of the day was, as you probably guessed, "extrapolation."

Tuesday, October 13, 2015

Valve Stem Protrusion; Knucks, Pans, and Shovels

Harleys are very rebuildable, and I would go so far as to venture that they may be among the most commonly rebuilt (using the term "rebuilt"somewhat loosely) of any engine family in existence. Such a supposition is somewhat bold, given the minuscule number of Harleys compared to the vast oceans of, say, small block Chevys. But face it, which engine is more likely to wind up in a scrap yard when it is in need of major repair?

Given that, along with the often less than spectacular life span of a top end rebuild on Knuckles, Pans, Shovels and Sportsters, many if not most have seen multiple valve jobs over the decades. Naturally with each valve job performed, the valves will seat a little deeper in the head. The method of gauging how much deeper is via the valve stem protrusion specification. Valve stem protrusion is one of those specs that is sometimes overlooked and to some extent misunderstood when dealing with Harley heads.

At issue are a several things. In no particular order; valve spring installed height, shrouding of the valve in the chamber, compression ratio, and finally rocker arm geometry. Having less than the minimum can lead to the devastating result of your valve springs reaching coil bind while your cam is still trying to lift the valves higher. Not a good situation and can usually be summed up as 'broken parts."  On the opposite end of the spectrum is the Panhead that looks as though the pan covers have been bashed out with a ball peen hammer (because they have indeed been bashed out with a ball peen hammer) so that the valve spring collars would not hit them.

Shrouding of the valve in the chamber from the valve being too deep is fairly easily remedied by a judicious modification of the chamber during the process of a valve job, though this too can overdone resulting in issues down the road when new seats are installed.  Along with deep valve seats comes a reduction in compression ratio (aggravated via de-shrouding) by making the chamber larger.  That may or may not be an issue depending on a number of factors.

Valve train geometry is also at issue, but I will attempt to address that later in the post.

To examine this subject I would like to start in the middle and work our way forward in time before going back to the beginning - that beginning being the Knucklehead.

On page 75 of the Harley Davidson Panhead Service Manual - 1948-1957 Rigid, we find what seems to be first official mention of the specification (at least that I can find).

The spec, which the drawing refers to as "Valve Seat Tolerance" is pretty self explanatory. It is the distance from the tip of the valve stem to top surface of the collar of the valve guide. The illustration also shows a gauge which was available for those lacking precise measuring tools or for quick checks. The gauge is simply a cylinder that straddles the guide. The "step" at the top of the gauge indicates minimum and maximum height; if the tip of the stem falls between the top and bottom of the notch, the stem protrusion is within spec.

The 1978-1/2 to 1984 FL/FX 1200/1340 4 Speed Service Manual (note the title may not be growing in length but it certainly is in use of numbers) shows the same illustration (page 3-18) for 1979 and earlier, but it might be worth noting that it offers a different illustration and spec for 1980 and later.

The difference, at least in part, is due to the changeover to valve guide seals. Earlier heads, both Pan and Shovel, only required a machined pad that was at least the diameter of the valve guide collar to locate the guide since the lower spring collar rested on the collar of the guide. The addition of seals made it necessary to rest the lower spring collar directly on the head to provide room for the seal, so the machined portion of the spring pocket was increased to the diameter of the lower spring collar.

Late vs Early

At first glance one might assume that the different spec is due to taking the measurement to a different surface, since it is now from the tip of the valve to the surface that the bottom of the guide collar seats against. And maybe that's the case, however, things don't seem to quite add up. If the collar on the guide is nominally .100" thick, then all is well. Add .100" to the early 1.500" to 1.545" spec and you come up with the '80 and later spec of 1.600 to 1.645". Ignoring the '80-'81 guides that used a .075" snap ring instead of having a guide with an integral collar, there is still the question of the gaskets that were under the guide collar on earlier motors. I had to look pretty close to even find the part number (18196-51) for this gasket in a Harley parts book since it does not appear in any later copies, though I have a small collection of them left over from top end kits. Measuring a random sample of these showed that they ranged in thickness from about .030" to .040". The James Gaskets catalog lists them as .031" thick with the application being 1951 to 1978.

Hmmm,... so with a window of only .045" in minimum and maximum stem protrusion, we find a variance of at least .030" just in whether or not a gasket was installed under the guide when rebuilding. And what about '48 to '50 Pans and '79 Shovels? Won't they show up as nearly at maximum protrusion right from the factory? And what does that mean when considering '80 and up which certainly never used the gasket? Now the .100" difference in stem protrusion spec doesn't add up so neatly because you have an "effective" guide collar thickness of .130" (collar + gasket) for many years.

Add all of this together and I think its safe to conclude that stem protrusion specification is probably not something will "make or break" your valve job unless you wander too far afield. My guess is that the spec was added after the fact as a guideline for mechanics rather than a part of the original design parameters of the Motor Company.

And if all doesn't throw enough margin of error into the equation, then consider this. If the Motor Company's stem protrusion specs theoretically provide correct valve train geometry (and that is a gigantic stretch given shops such as Baisley High Performance have presumably made a fair chunk of money over the years from their service of correcting Harley rocker arm geometry), then that still means that when you increase valve lift via a performance cam, you have also changed the stem protrusion numbers which should theoretically retain correct geometry.

Here is basically how it works. If you were to draw one imaginary line through your pushrod and another through the rocker arm's ball socket to the center of the rocker shaft, when your cam is at one half of its lift, the line should form a 90 degree angle. Likewise, an imaginary line from the center of the rocker shaft to the pad of the arm should also form a 90 degree angle with the centerline of the valve stem at that same half lift point. That way at zero lift the line through your rocker arm should be the same amount below 90 degrees as it is above 90 degrees at full lift. But that means that if you increase the lift of the valve with no other changes, then the angle with the valve closed will remain the same , but the 90 degree relationship between pushrod and rocker will no longer be at 1/2 lift. To get back to the theoretically correct valve train geometry you would need to lengthen the valve by an amount equal to 1/2 the increase in lift. Or, you could get the same effect by sinking the valve that amount. And guess which is easier and more cost effective, sinking the valve or having a custom valve manufactured?

All of that is to say that with a performance cam, the theoretically correct stem protrusion increases at a rate of half the increase in valve lift. In practice this also has the added benefit on a Harley of providing the increased valve to valve clearance during overlap (commonly referred to as Top Dead Center lift) which is needed for those performance cams.

Now, with all that to digest, I'll pause briefly before continuing with the question of valve stem protrusion on a Knucklehead.  Stay tuned.

Monday, August 24, 2015

One Nation

Over the years, when contemplating such things as the Holocaust,  I have often wondered how the German people could stand by while such atrocities were perpetrated. Estimates are that more than 6 million Jews were killed over a 12 year period. Many of these met their fate at concentration camps such as Dachau, or in what may be more accurately called death camps such as Auschwitz or Chelmno.

I have often thought upon the stories of how the Allied forces, when they liberated the camps, forced the local citizens to go out to the camps and view the results of the great evil which they had allowed to take place.  Many of the locals expressed some level of horror, claiming they really didn't know what was taking place under the Nazis.  Still, I could never quite accept that, and would be left feeling that the people should have risen up against their government and come to the aid of their fellow human beings.  I could not help but think that if I had been in that position I would not have stood for it.  I'd have had to do something.  Conscience would have demanded it regardless of consequences.  Just what kind of depraved citizenry could allow such a thing to happen?

Fast forward 70 years.  The Jewish Holocaust only a painful memory.  Yes, there is a whole religion which simultaneously denies the first Jewish Holocaust while it preaches the need for a second, but we have not yet seen its implementation.  However, we are already in the midst of another holocaust involving even greater numbers and just as much evil.  If you can watch the following video and join your fellow countrymen in calmly sitting by and ignoring it, ...well, then it would appear that your conscience is already seared.

In our hearts and minds we cannot help but pass judgment on those citizens of Nazi Germany who turned their backs and ignored the evil which was happening in their midst.  But we should be careful to keep a mirror handy.

" For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." (Matthew 7:2)

Do you believe the German people individually bear some responsibility for their lack of action?  Then we bear some responsibility for our lack of action in our modern abortion holocaust.  Do you believe that the downfall of the Nazi government was a just reward for carrying out the Holocaust?  Then where does that leave our nation?


Tuesday, August 18, 2015

2015 Meltdown Lives Up to the Name

Not exactly what one might call "timely" but I thought a short report on the 2015 Meltdown Drags to be in order.  That it lived up to its name is an understatement.  Hot, humid, and more hot.

As per my plan, I spent a little time before the event putting together a 4 speed transmission for the Knuckledragger, and got it installed with about a day to spare.  The largest obstacle turned out to be the most expensive piece involved in building the transmission, that being a new reproduction ratchet lid.  Ratchet it did not.  Thankfully I caught the problem while "dry shifting" it before even putting it on the trany.  it would have been quite discouraging to get to the track only to be plagued by shifting problems once again.  As it was, all it cost me was a bunch of time to figure out and modify the part so that it would function.

Rather than traveling in style as we did for last year's event, this time around we went for practicality.  That means that in place transporting the Knuckledragger on an open trailer behind our '46 Studebaker, we put the bike in our small enclosed trailer and towed it with our '90 GMC pickup.  I guess one person's modern is  another's vintage.  Even our enclosed trailer took the opportunity to remind us just how old it is by shedding the tread from one its tires near Madison Wisconsin.  That's right, even our "modern" enclosed trailer is so old that the tires I remember buying for it nearly 20 years ago (because we wore out the first pair traveling all over the country to drag races) disintegrated due to age.  The good LORD was looking out for us though; and the tire never even lost air, allowing us to pull off the freeway to install the spare which I had remembered to air up at the last minute the night before.  A short detour to a Farm and Fleet store got us back on the road with a new pair of tires, delaying us just enough to insure we would not have time to make any passes on Friday.

Hard to believe this still held air!

Saturday morning dawned, well... hot.  A first look at the "vintage" three instrument set which I mounted to the back door of our trailer many years ago, revealed over 80 degrees and 75% humidity.  As the day went on, the humidity dropped some, but the temperature kept right on climbing, at one point breaking 100 in the shade of our canopy. But despite the heat it was time to fire up the Knuckledragger  for the first time since the 2014 Meltdown Drags.  So much for my wife's insistence that I absolutely must test the bike before hauling it all the way the Illinois ...

The start up revealed that the bike was running good.  The idle was higher than I remembered, but it was also seemed to be much more consistent, so I decided against messing with it.  The clutch was releasing nicely, and combined with the good idle characteristics, allowed me to take my right hand off the throttle to reach across the tank and put the transmission into gear.  Yes, that's right: a hand shift and a hand clutch, both on the left side.  That drew more than a couple puzzled glances over the weekend.

It starts, it runs, and it will go into gear.  Better make a pass!

As we brought the bike up to the staging lanes late that morning, I had two concerns.  One was the start and the other was the finish.  The 5 inch slick on the back of the Knuckledragger with its modern compound, combined with  extremely sticky track preparation courtesy of the Byron Dragway crew, is a recipe for wheelies.  Add to that the fact that the new transmission has a first and second gear, unlike the third and fourth in the old two speed it replaced, and I was a little concerned with how the bike would launch.  The second concern had to do with the finish.  Last year's lone trip down the 1/4 mile  plagued by shifting problems was not much of a test of the Knuckledragger's 1930s designed brakes.  I really prefer to be able to stop while still on the drag strip!

John Endrizzi was kind enough to help out with getting the bike to the line and all that entails

That first concern was solved rather easily by a combination of staging to the outside of the portion of the track that was heavily prepped.  Since the Byron dragstrip is unusually wide (in the 60s they would race the cars 4 abreast) there was still plenty of room between where I staged and the edge of the track.  As an added precaution I "drove" the bike off the starting line rather than launching it.  Once off the starting line, the bike went straight as I poured the coal to it. 

This and the previous photo were passed on to me by way of Kevin Baas.  Thank you to whoever took the pics and sent them to him.

The shift from first to second was exactly as it was supposed to be, fast and clean ...as was the shift to third and again to fourth!  Finally.  This was the first time in four outings that this bike had shifted properly.  But now my second area of concern was rapidly approaching.  In fact, it seemed to be approaching too rapidly!  About 200 feet from the finish line that concern turned into fear that I would not be able to get the bike stopped within the confines of the shut down area so  I shut the throttle and laid on the brakes.  Of course the rear drum brake coupled with the just barely "better than nothing" springer front brake does not give anything like the sensation of modern brakes, but I did get stopped with some room to spare.  12.228 seconds at 97.03 MPH.  The time slip shows the Knuckledragger was clipping along at over 91 MPH at half track so I have to wonder how fast it was traveling before I hit the brakes.

Something about high temperatures and humidity is not conducive to putting on a helmet and a full set of leathers.  It was apparent that the heat was also limiting the number of cars getting into the staging lanes also.  About mid afternoon I decided that if I did not get up there for another pass, I would be too worn out from the heat to do it at all. 

This time I did not concern myself as much about the starting line, staging a little more into the sticky part of the track (though still far from where I would have if looking for maximum hook up).  That was probably a mistake.  I left just slightly harder than the previous pass, which sent the front wheel reaching for the sky.  Well, at least from my viewpoint it was high, but such things can be deceptive when you are lying down on a bike.  Unfortunately my staff photographer had just finished helping with the whole starting the bike drill and had no time to get in position to record it for posterity, so we may never know just how far the front wheel came up.  In any case, rather than shutting the throttle and slamming the front end down, I eased off enough that it came down with a reasonable amount of gentleness, and then immediately came back up as I got back into the throttle.  The second wheelie was a much more half hearted effort on the Knuckledragger's part though, not requiring me to let off.  Once again, this description is from my perspective.  If ever any video evidence surfaces, it may reveal that I handled the wheelies with far less professionalism than what it felt like from behind the bars.

Despite an abysmal 60 foot time owing to the acrobatics, the shift into second was good, but then at the top of second gear the motor started to break up.  What?  My first thought was valve float, but that had never happened before.  Hitting third gear cleared up the motor and it pulled hard until near time to shift into high.  This time I glanced down as I shifted only to see that as I moved my arm to shift it pulled the sleeve of my leathers out of the front carb into which it had been sucked!  Happy to know that I was not dealing with engine damage but merely rider error, I kept the throttle wide open to the finish line. 

The E.T. suffered greatly from the multiple fiascos on the run (14.12) and the MPH did not fare much better (101.4).  Again the half track MPH is quite revealing.  Apparently having a sleeve in one carb is enough to knock 12 MPH off your speed at the 1/8 mile mark compared to the previous pass.  But you know what?  That turned out to be a good thing.  I had no plans to make another pass due to the temperature.  That would have been just asking for heat stroke.  In fact I remember saying to someone after that second run that it was my last because there was no sense pushing my luck. 

 Remember near the beginning of this post when I mentioned the LORD looking out for us with the trailer tire?  What we found on the Knuckledragger after we returned home made the trailer tire pale in comparison.  The neck on its 1930s era frame is cracked, and not just cracked, but CRACKED!  In fact you can see daylight through the crack it is so cracked.

A little back lighting reveals a major crack.

Red arrows point to start and end points.

You often hear, "somebody up there is looking out for me."  Yes, well that is true, but I know who that somebody is and I'm willing to say it.  The LORD God almighty, YHWH is his name.

Monday, August 3, 2015

Parting Them Out

I come to you with a troubling post today. Some may dismiss it as being just too "sentimental" or dismiss me as someone who just needs to lighten up and not take life so seriously. Perhaps many of those who have not spent countless hours on the same old Harley over long periods of time (time measured in decades, not years) will not feel the same. But if you have ever owned, ridden, and lived on/with the same bike for enough time, then you too will likely have formed a bond with it. That bond is often forged while tuning and repairing, repainting and rebuilding the same bike over and over through those many years of ownership; or should we say years of partnership? How often have you heard a fellow enthusiast refer to his motorcycle as his "baby?" Is it any wonder that often the feeling that the machine is more than just the sum of its many mechanical parts is expressed by the bestowal of a name. But even those not predisposed to naming their bikes often wind up feeling that their "old friend" has taken on some type of life of its own, or at least some sort of mystical mechanical soul. I know you guys are out there, because some of you have brought your bike's engine parts to me with the confession that you are VERY careful about to whom they will entrust the internal organs of their pride and joy. Yes, it is plain that many old time bikers would probably, in a moment of sentimentality, wax poetic and confess that there just might be something to the whole idea of old Harleys having a soul.

And that is what makes the subject of this post troubling. I would like to address is what seems to be an increasingly common practice of "parting out" complete and running condition vintage Harleys.

Though it is certain that there have always been back alley operations involved in the dissection of old Harleys, the practice has become more lucrative recently with the popularity of the eBay worldwide marketplace. Given the ever increasing price of vintage Harley parts, I suppose it was bound to happen. It seems that some individuals have found that some old Harleys are worth more in pieces than as a "project" bike, or "basket case" as we used to call them.

This practice of parting out viable Harleys recently came to my attention via the aforementioned eBay. One need not search too deeply under Antique, Vintage, Historic in the Motorcycle Parts category to find one. Often the purveyors will be so blatant as to include an admission in the advertisement to the effect that they are parting out the motorcycle so be sure to check their other auctions for the rest of the parts offered. And we can mourn one more vintage Harley which was once someone's 'baby" that will never again feel the wind of freedom against its headlight. The callousness these butchers display as they calmly admit to their profiteering while offering up the parts to the highest bidder is beyond the pale.

Frankly, I find the practice not just troubling, but a bit disgusting as well. Here is an undercover video that sheds much light on this horrendous practice:


Okay, if you took the time to view the video, you have realized that it is not about parting out old Harleys, but about something infinitely more wicked; parting out new babies. If you could read my post leading up to the video and have the slightest feeling of agreement, then how much more should you be totally outraged by the practice of Planned Parenthood in not only murdering babies, but then going the extra mile on the road to hell in profiteering from their now lifeless bodies.

It is true enough that we should be far more outraged by the killing of these precious souls than we are by the ghoulish selling of their body parts, but perhaps we have become too complacent with the evil that has been among us since 1973 when the Supreme Court legalized the murder of these babies. Maybe the new revelations of depravity will temporarily be shocking enough to force this nation to turn back from its wicked course. If you are not a Christian, and you shrug your shoulders at this sale of dead baby parts, then you are heaping coals of fire on your already sin laden head. If you are a Christian but you are too busy to spend a few moments fighting this spiritual wickedness, just how do you plan to explain that before the judgment seat of Christ?  All I ask is that every one of you who are men of conscience take a few minutes to do something, whether it be contacting your elected representative, passing this or similar articles along via social media, sending links to your friends and acquaintances, or praying. We all need to do something to not only denounce, but to stop this barbaric practice of child sacrifice.

Wednesday, July 22, 2015

Satan Caught on Video

If you don't run in the same circles that I do, then you may have missed this blip on the news.  Indeed, the Devil (or at the very least a high ranking minion) was recently recorded doing, well ...the devil's work, in a hidden camera video.

Okay, I overstated the case a bit when I called Deborah Nucatola (from the above video) Satan.  I'll stand by the high ranking minion description though.  In a strange turn of events another high ranking minion was also recently caught on video discussing the sale of dead murdered baby parts.
If you can hold down your lunch long enough to get to the end of this video, you may catch Mary Gatter quipping that she wants a Lamborghini; a clear allusion to the profit she can see in the modern day equivalent of grave robbery.  I have to say, Dr. Frankenstein from the tale by Shelley was a far more sympathetic figure; of course that story does not begin to earn the adjective "horror" when put beside the murderous history of Planned Parenthood.
By the way, you may want to go back and watch the beginning of the second video one more time.  Cecile Richards.  If Mary Gatter and Deborah Nucatola only qualify as high ranking minions of Satan, when the question becomes, what about Cecile Richards?  Well, Jesus said this:
 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. (John 8:44)

Cecile Richards may not be the devil incarnate, but it is plain whose daughter she is.

BUT, wicked as all of this is, the lesson we might learn from the small amount of outrage generated is how depraved our once great nation has become.  A few people may become upset over the ghoulish sale of dead baby body parts, but have they forgotten the millions of babies murdered in the years since the Supreme Court instituted a constitutional right to commit that murder?  You serious Clark?  What is the greater sin?  The murder or the sale of the corpse?

May God have mercy on us, though we surely deserve none.