Originally Posted by EG Ultra Classic

Seems like a lot of production units to recall resulting in quite a bit of expense for the motor company. It must be serious. Perhaps they havn't stated the real problem possibly being tank mounting bracket fatigued failure resulting in fuel leaks onto the hot motor below during normal operations.

Originally Posted by Roosterboots

In 2009, Harley-Davidson touring models were redesigned with a new chassis that was intended to improve comfort, maneuverability, and heat management. Seven Touring models were affected. The design combined a new frame, swingarm, exhaust and engine mounting.

On 5/28/09, Harley-Davidson noted the presence of sheet metal tears in the fuel tank tunnel adjacent to a weld attaching the front fuel tank mounts to the tank itself. The damage was observed after a 30 mph, 90-degree impact test with a 2010 FLHTK.

The following month, Harley-Davidson analyzed three similar vehicles that had been barrier crash tested. The crash reports on these three samples did not indicate any fuel leakage, but the damage to the tanks was similar to that observed on the 5/28/09 test. According to Harley-Davidson, “The failure mode observed was a buckling of the front mounting brackets in a direction that is trying to tear the bracket away from the fuel tank tunnel in the area of the weld.”

Harley-Davidson engineers continued to investigate, developing models and bench tests that showed frame distortion resulting from a collision as the causative factor. Through early November, the company studied the correlation between the 90-degree barrier test and real world performance. They found no instances of fire, injury, or fatalities resulting from such a collision.

On November 19, 2009, Harley-Davidson’s executive management determined that a safety related defect existed on this class of motorcycle and declared a recall to remedy the issue.

It could not have been an easy decision. A third-quarter drop of 84% in profits and the recent demise of the Buell motorcycle line point to a company that needs more than ever to track every nickel and dime. Did Harley have to do this?

The limited parameters involved in the crash and the poor expectations of survivability for the rider have called into question Harley-Davidson’s decision. Was it really a safety issue, or were there political considerations at play?

According to a study by the University of Southern California in 2006, the average (median) speed of a motorcycle crash at impact is 21.5 mph, while the median pre-crash speed is 29.8 mph. So a 30 mph frontal collision is a realistic condition. A rider sitting atop a motorcycle that abruptly stops at this speed will continue on the original path of travel at about the same speed as his motorcycle had attained prior to the crash.

If that rider encounters an immovable barrier (such as a car) and decelerates instantaneously, the effect will probably NOT be survivable.

But anyone who has ever watched a motocross event will tell you that a 30 mph crash is decidedly survivable. If the driver hits the ground at 30 mph (not a tree or another car), he will roll and slide to a stop. With a helmet, his odds of living through the crash are quite high. The odds of walking away, however, are very low. Add to this scenario a leaking fuel tank and a source of heat and sparks, and it’s easy to see the ingredients for a tragedy.

Consider also the crash where the rider lays his bike down and slides to a stop. It's easy to imagine a situation where the bike slides ahead of the rider's body and impacts a tree or a boulder, opening the gas tank. The injured rider then slides into his own flaming wreckage. Except for the flames, an otherwise survivable situation.

Harley-Davidson executives did not have such a difficult decision to make, after all.