Baker Attitude Adjuster
Grand HDF Member
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,002
Likes: 1,240
From: On the Front Range, CO
What can I say, I am at a loss …
I am at a loss to explain how the chain not only chewed and broke the main support (with the “armored” support supposedly in place), but was flopping around so bad that it also galled the main metal support, and the shoe as well, in areas the chain should never touch, never ever!
I cannot conceive in my mind how, if properly installed and everything within tolerance that occurred.
Please explain.
Obviously there are many members here who want to know.
BTW, what did you replace it with that was better?
I am at a loss to explain how the chain not only chewed and broke the main support (with the “armored” support supposedly in place), but was flopping around so bad that it also galled the main metal support, and the shoe as well, in areas the chain should never touch, never ever!
I cannot conceive in my mind how, if properly installed and everything within tolerance that occurred.
Please explain.
Obviously there are many members here who want to know.
BTW, what did you replace it with that was better?
The Baker adjuster has a main support that attaches to the inner primary housing using the two stock mounting bolts ONLY, as that's all the primary housing allows for as far as attachment points go. There is no support underneath it or behind the upper adjustment part that extends upwards.
From there, the shoe carrier mounts to it with one carriage bolt to the upper mating areas that are splined to lock the adjustment into place. This piece is easily 4-5" longer and above the two stock mounting bolts, which again are holding the entire adjuster in place.
Since Baker knew the shoe carrier was bending at the 90* bend, they revised (and even offered separately) the front support bracket. This is much thinner metal than the rest of the adjuster uses, and further utilizes the lower two mounting bolts and a single, much smaller bolt on the shoe carrier to offer support on the outside of the shoe.
In my case, the MAIN SUPPORT BRACKET snapped below the splined area, and of course remained bolted to the shoe carrier. In addition, the 'Armored' portion (the front support plate) also snapped at two places, as it was too thin and weak to support the tension of the primary chain. As for which happened first, I'm not sure, and suspect they happened together.
I do not think the failure was acute. I believe the materials fatigued over a period of time and failed simultaneously.
As for the galling and metal destruction on the inner bend of the shoe carrier - that's all a result of the shoe carrier and upper portion of the main bracket being snapped off allowing the shoe to rattle around. At least with the design of the tensioner, it wasn't able to break free from its location completely and lodge between the sprocket or clutch basket and the primary housing - That would have been a very very bad day!
You repeatedly mention that the failure I experienced is linked to my inability to install the tensioner correctly. I'm at a loss for your conclusion, for several reasons.
- While tolerances exist that shouldn't be ignored, this tensioner is a very straight forward install. Two bolts attach the main bracket to the housing. Another bolt is used to set the adjustment. And finally a support plate is attached to the outside of the shoe. Aside from setting chain tension, there is no adjustment possible for in/out (depth). I can assure you that not only was chain tension set correctly on a cold chain, but the chain was DEFINITELY not rubbing the shoe carrier (which if you hadn't noticed, was not a point of failure).
- If my primary drive was so far out of tolerances and the sprocket/clutch basket were so far out of alignment to contribute to this failure, I deduce that I'd have much larger problems. I do not.
- Review of the projects I've completed and posted on this forum would indicate that I have tackled more challenging projects without failure. Everything from several Batwing - to - Road Glide conversions, to engine upgrades, to cam updates, to complete tear downs, to tire changing, etc. I may not be a professional, but I'm detail oriented and competent.
Beyond all that, perhaps the Baker adjuster just isn't a quality piece. Its very design puts leverages a 90* bend in the main support bracket, with support only provided underneath that bend and no support behind the upper portion of that bracket. Or perhaps it's not capable of supporting high output builds (though there are plenty of stock engines running it with BENT (i.e. not yet broken) supports. Surely we can both agree that the support bending wasn't part of the design, and that's a point that Baker has already conceded too by offering an updated design AND selling the front support separately.
Lastly, since you didn't care to read my entire post, I'll repeat for you that I switched back to a new stock tensioner. It has been revised, I believe in 2010, to correct the overtightening issues that many experienced. The details of what was revised are available by doing some searching on the forum. The revised tensioner was stock on my bike to begin with.
If the Baker tensioner works for you, that's great and I don't wish its failure on you. It's expensive and its failure could cause severe damage. For me, it didn't work. I believe I was looking for a solution to a problem I didn't have.
Again I'm going to pull the cover and inspect mine this week. Something does sound off, why would Baker make a modification to the original product other than to correct the design issues from the original.
Grand HDF Member
Joined: Jun 2017
Posts: 4,588
Likes: 3,910
From: Near Yosemite
I have a brand new "Armored" tensioner sitting in my mailbox that I have to go get in a bit. I'm having some other work done on my 14 SGS and the original tension has to come off anyhow so I thought this would be a good upgrade....... I may have to rethink that now after some of this evidence here.
Club Member
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,668
Likes: 417
I believe the design is well intended but flawed. I'll explain.
The Baker adjuster has a main support that attaches to the inner primary housing using the two stock mounting bolts ONLY, as that's all the primary housing allows for as far as attachment points go. There is no support underneath it or behind the upper adjustment part that extends upwards.
From there, the shoe carrier mounts to it with one carriage bolt to the upper mating areas that are splined to lock the adjustment into place. This piece is easily 4-5" longer and above the two stock mounting bolts, which again are holding the entire adjuster in place.
Since Baker knew the shoe carrier was bending at the 90* bend, they revised (and even offered separately) the front support bracket. This is much thinner metal than the rest of the adjuster uses, and further utilizes the lower two mounting bolts and a single, much smaller bolt on the shoe carrier to offer support on the outside of the shoe.
In my case, the MAIN SUPPORT BRACKET snapped below the splined area, and of course remained bolted to the shoe carrier. In addition, the 'Armored' portion (the front support plate) also snapped at two places, as it was too thin and weak to support the tension of the primary chain. As for which happened first, I'm not sure, and suspect they happened together.
I do not think the failure was acute. I believe the materials fatigued over a period of time and failed simultaneously.
As for the galling and metal destruction on the inner bend of the shoe carrier - that's all a result of the shoe carrier and upper portion of the main bracket being snapped off allowing the shoe to rattle around. At least with the design of the tensioner, it wasn't able to break free from its location completely and lodge between the sprocket or clutch basket and the primary housing - That would have been a very very bad day!
You repeatedly mention that the failure I experienced is linked to my inability to install the tensioner correctly. I'm at a loss for your conclusion, for several reasons.
Beyond all that, perhaps the Baker adjuster just isn't a quality piece. Its very design puts leverages a 90* bend in the main support bracket, with support only provided underneath that bend and no support behind the upper portion of that bracket. Or perhaps it's not capable of supporting high output builds (though there are plenty of stock engines running it with BENT (i.e. not yet broken) supports. Surely we can both agree that the support bending wasn't part of the design, and that's a point that Baker has already conceded too by offering an updated design AND selling the front support separately.
Lastly, since you didn't care to read my entire post, I'll repeat for you that I switched back to a new stock tensioner. It has been revised, I believe in 2010, to correct the overtightening issues that many experienced. The details of what was revised are available by doing some searching on the forum. The revised tensioner was stock on my bike to begin with.
If the Baker tensioner works for you, that's great and I don't wish its failure on you. It's expensive and its failure could cause severe damage. For me, it didn't work. I believe I was looking for a solution to a problem I didn't have.
The Baker adjuster has a main support that attaches to the inner primary housing using the two stock mounting bolts ONLY, as that's all the primary housing allows for as far as attachment points go. There is no support underneath it or behind the upper adjustment part that extends upwards.
From there, the shoe carrier mounts to it with one carriage bolt to the upper mating areas that are splined to lock the adjustment into place. This piece is easily 4-5" longer and above the two stock mounting bolts, which again are holding the entire adjuster in place.
Since Baker knew the shoe carrier was bending at the 90* bend, they revised (and even offered separately) the front support bracket. This is much thinner metal than the rest of the adjuster uses, and further utilizes the lower two mounting bolts and a single, much smaller bolt on the shoe carrier to offer support on the outside of the shoe.
In my case, the MAIN SUPPORT BRACKET snapped below the splined area, and of course remained bolted to the shoe carrier. In addition, the 'Armored' portion (the front support plate) also snapped at two places, as it was too thin and weak to support the tension of the primary chain. As for which happened first, I'm not sure, and suspect they happened together.
I do not think the failure was acute. I believe the materials fatigued over a period of time and failed simultaneously.
As for the galling and metal destruction on the inner bend of the shoe carrier - that's all a result of the shoe carrier and upper portion of the main bracket being snapped off allowing the shoe to rattle around. At least with the design of the tensioner, it wasn't able to break free from its location completely and lodge between the sprocket or clutch basket and the primary housing - That would have been a very very bad day!
You repeatedly mention that the failure I experienced is linked to my inability to install the tensioner correctly. I'm at a loss for your conclusion, for several reasons.
- While tolerances exist that shouldn't be ignored, this tensioner is a very straight forward install. Two bolts attach the main bracket to the housing. Another bolt is used to set the adjustment. And finally a support plate is attached to the outside of the shoe. Aside from setting chain tension, there is no adjustment possible for in/out (depth). I can assure you that not only was chain tension set correctly on a cold chain, but the chain was DEFINITELY not rubbing the shoe carrier (which if you hadn't noticed, was not a point of failure).
- If my primary drive was so far out of tolerances and the sprocket/clutch basket were so far out of alignment to contribute to this failure, I deduce that I'd have much larger problems. I do not.
- Review of the projects I've completed and posted on this forum would indicate that I have tackled more challenging projects without failure. Everything from several Batwing - to - Road Glide conversions, to engine upgrades, to cam updates, to complete tear downs, to tire changing, etc. I may not be a professional, but I'm detail oriented and competent.
Beyond all that, perhaps the Baker adjuster just isn't a quality piece. Its very design puts leverages a 90* bend in the main support bracket, with support only provided underneath that bend and no support behind the upper portion of that bracket. Or perhaps it's not capable of supporting high output builds (though there are plenty of stock engines running it with BENT (i.e. not yet broken) supports. Surely we can both agree that the support bending wasn't part of the design, and that's a point that Baker has already conceded too by offering an updated design AND selling the front support separately.
Lastly, since you didn't care to read my entire post, I'll repeat for you that I switched back to a new stock tensioner. It has been revised, I believe in 2010, to correct the overtightening issues that many experienced. The details of what was revised are available by doing some searching on the forum. The revised tensioner was stock on my bike to begin with.
If the Baker tensioner works for you, that's great and I don't wish its failure on you. It's expensive and its failure could cause severe damage. For me, it didn't work. I believe I was looking for a solution to a problem I didn't have.
There is a warning about this in the attitude adjuster installation instructions. It states that an overtightened chain will cause the adjuster to bend downwards causing the chain to ride inward and contact the support bracket. This sounds like what happened to yours.
If I had not checked the chain slack around the clock points and set my 5/8” slack where the chain has the most slack, the tight side would have been at 3/8” and the chain would be over tightened.
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/10...51219686160143
Seasoned HDF Member
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 14,006
Likes: 11,009
From: San Diego, CA
I can't remember if it was here or on HTT, but when the Hayden tensioner was having having spring issues with the '09+ tensioner, someone tried this one and said it was very noisy... he went back to stock....
I found some posts. It's garbage due to the shoe material. It's a harder material and that's what makes it noisy.
Seasoned HDF Member
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 14,006
Likes: 11,009
From: San Diego, CA
I switched back to a new stock tensioner. It has been revised, I believe in 2010, to correct the overtightening issues that many experienced. The details of what was revised are available by doing some searching on the forum. The revised tensioner was stock on my bike to begin with.
For those who haven't seen it, the upgraded Harley auto tensioner #39929-06B, became OEM in 2010...
The original #399290-06 tensioner became OEM on the '06 Dyna, had issues, and then went to the rest of the line in '07 as the #39929-06A...
Here is a pic of the "B" auto tensioner and the one it replaced. The newest "B" version is the top one in the photo
In the photo, you can see three of the biggest changes:
1) the bottom frame was made thicker, stronger, and with less flex
2) the adjustment teeth were made much smaller, to allow for smaller adjustments to the chain tension.
3) the bottom of the shoe mount, that ratchets up the base, only has teeth across a smaller section of the mount, instead of all along the base mount.
These changes were designed to keep it from over tightening the primary chain. While it's certainly not perfect, there have been far fewer issues with it than its predecessor...
The upgrade in 2010 was hidden among all the complaints from 2007-2009 owners who were going through the bad tensioners and suffering collateral damage to other primary parts, due to an over tight primary chain. Many of them needed to pay for it on their own dime as their warranty was over....
When I got my 2012 bagger, I was unaware of the newer tensioner version on my bike. I bought a Hayden as preventive medicine, but got one with the old, longer springs, so I didn't install it. Hayden was gracious enough to send me a set of the newer springs for that unit.... but by then, my "B" tensioner was operating properly, and I learned of the it's newer design. The Hayden is still on a shelf, and I'm on a second Twin Cam bagger with the newer "B" tensioner that has performed flawlessly...
Next month I'll be putting a 124" crate engine in my bagger to replace the 103", Stage I, engine.... We'll see if I'm still a fan of the OEM "B" tensioner after the engine swap......
Last edited by hattitude; Sep 8, 2019 at 03:36 PM.
