Re: My kingdom for a shear pin!

Gordon (hlg@pacbell.net)
Fri, 27 Nov 1998 10:21:23 -0800


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
West Wight Potter Website at URL
http://www.lesbois.com/wwpotter/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Geoff wrote:

>My humble apologies, Harry. I took one sentence of your E-mail and got a
>little carried away. I do respect the fact that you have kept things simple
>and practical. I think that the fact that you have gotten so much use out of
>your old motor and still stay in tune with what is new is admirable. You are
>right. The only Seagull I am familiar with is a very small motor that was made
>without even a shroud or cover over the moving parts. It is, for all intents
>and purposes, just a cylinder, a piston and a lower drive that is just one rod
>and a prop. The only one's I've seen, just a couple of them, have been smokey
>and loud. I have heard so many stories about motors that would refuse to
>start when you needed them.

No apology needed, ol' buddy. My Seagull is the same as you describe but
maybe a little larger. There are actually two shafts going down, and this
makes it impossible to rotate the motor 180 degrees to reverse direction.
Mine has not been smokey, but maybe I just haven't used it enough to wear
it out. The gnarly sound is satisfying when you first start up but soon
becomes tiring. There was an add-on recoil starter available that I almost
bought, but after checking dimensions I determined that I would not be able
to tilt the motor up with the added height of the starter. Jon HInolt, who
sails the Bay out of Alameda, does have a recoil starter on his Forty Plus
and it clears the transom okay with his motor mount. Jerry Barrilleaux
replaced his Seagull some years ago because he found he could not depend on
it to start or keep running. He has disassembled his Seagull and found the
interior to be as crude as the exterior.

My first car was a 31 Chrysler convertible, which had a banging main
bearing all the time I owned it. A friend of mine once drove it and
declared that my engine was so loose it had stopped wearing. Perhaps that
is the secret of the Seagull's longevity. It is just built loose.
>
>I have some friends who have a few years on me, or rather a few decades, and
>they are constantly putting down the two stroke engine as being virtually a
>toy that is undependable and unpredictable. They have, for the most part, had
>Seagulls and old Sears outboards.
>
I think the days of the two-cycle are numbered unless there is a
technological breakthrough. The basic concept doesn't provide adequate
scavenging of unburned fuel and too much goes out the exhaust. Having to
mix oil with the fuel is a major nuisance also, although some two cycles
use oil injectors that take care of that problem. The oil in the fuel also
contributes to plug fouling.

I have owned several Mazdas with rotary engines and have watched them
improve in both reliability and pollution control, despite problems similar
to two cycles. They also have ports instead of valves, combine the
compression and exhaust "strokes," and require some oil to be burned with
the fuel, although much less than the two cycles. They also tend to have a
loud exhaust sound. But they are so reliable now that I would prefer one
for aircraft power over the Rotrax two cycles that are used in some
homebuilts. But the rotary is probably a lost cause since Mazda has stopped
importing any rotary engine cars, possibly due to Ford's influence as much
as the conservatism of American drivers and mechanics.

>My newer Honda seems to be equally dependable, but with valves and more moving
>parts, I would be a little more hesitant to open up the engine. Actually,
>I've never met a Honda owner who has had to. The worst problem seems to be
>either a flooded engine (which I saw once, at the Tahoe Potter sail) or a
>fouled plug. I have been told that the new Hondas are almost impossible to
>flood. Although it never happened to me, I understand that this does happen
>with Hondas prior to the new ones.
>
>Again, I apologize. I used your letter as a soapbox to try to let anyone who
>cared that the breaking of shear pins is not the fault of the motor, but of
>something not being quite kosher with the motor. Something that should be
>fixed.

My point also.

>Most motors have some way of storing extra shear pins on the shroud or
>somewhere on the motor. That's good. A couple of extra, just in case you lose
>one or two, should be part of your emergency supply kit.

Unless, of course, you have a Seagull. (Just kidding.) Possibly the best
thing about the old Seagulls was the manual that came with them. It seems
to have been written by a crotchety old salt with little patience for those
who would not follow instructions or use common sense. Here is an example:

'...if the engine won't start (always supposing that there is fuel in the
carburettor, and that it hasn't run out of fuel) and shows no sign of life
after three or four pulls of the starting cord, and ONLY three or four,
WHIP OUT THE PLUG AT ONCE...don't go on pulling the cord....

'...But will people do this?...No, they won't...instead, they go on pulling
the starting cord for twenty minutes or so, pumping more and more fuel into
the engine, and filling the plug with oil, and then have to row home, and
sometimes (if they've got the strength) write a furious letter to the
manufacturers.

'We have no sympathy with those people at all.'

Harry Gordon
P14 #234, Manatee
Mountain View, CA