1981 EFNR.
Very very little use, in generally extremely good order. I'll have a photo up here as soon as I can find the lead.
This motor was assembled from selected components in 1981 by a senior British Seagull manager. With the aid of the Service Department (whose supervisor confirms the story) he miked up comonents and chose those whose dimensions best suited each other. His idea was to make one that performed better than the standard models, and he achieved just that.
I first learned of this motor a couple of years ago when I interviewed the gentleman concerned; he had worked for the company since he was 14, and had much of interest to relate. He sadly passed away last year.
PM me if you would like to know more.
A rather special EFNR model
Moderators: John@sos, charlesp, Charles uk, RickUK, Petergalileo
-
Charles uk
- Posts: 4955
- Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 4:38 pm
- Location: Maidenhead Berks UK
Given the timing it's inevitable that they were aware of Maurice's project. Maybe not dressed in white lab coats, micrometers in hand, overseeing the business, but in a fairly close knit environment then they were 'around'.
It's interesting that this crops up so soon after Phil's enquiries about tolerances; that's what this motor is all about - matching up all the components to make a better machine.
The family are disposing of it, and yes it's for sale. I will add a photo as soon as I can find the lead. Sadly the daughter of the house was the last one to tidy up, and that's frequently the death knell of anything I want to lay my hands on.
It's interesting that this crops up so soon after Phil's enquiries about tolerances; that's what this motor is all about - matching up all the components to make a better machine.
The family are disposing of it, and yes it's for sale. I will add a photo as soon as I can find the lead. Sadly the daughter of the house was the last one to tidy up, and that's frequently the death knell of anything I want to lay my hands on.
-
Charles uk
- Posts: 4955
- Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 4:38 pm
- Location: Maidenhead Berks UK
Your friend who built this motor, what was his job description? was he in production or research & development?
What I'm trying to ask was, was this motor built to exact production tolerances using the best of available parts from the production line, or was it built along the lines, of taking the ENFR a couple of steps further along it's development path with a few none standard bespoke parts, in the quest for more power?
You will understand my motivation in these questions as, if this motor was a development type motor, it would be very interesting where Seagull felt, the most cost effective power increases could be found.
What I'm trying to ask was, was this motor built to exact production tolerances using the best of available parts from the production line, or was it built along the lines, of taking the ENFR a couple of steps further along it's development path with a few none standard bespoke parts, in the quest for more power?
You will understand my motivation in these questions as, if this motor was a development type motor, it would be very interesting where Seagull felt, the most cost effective power increases could be found.
He was in charge of production. He came up through the ranks, as it were, starting at a very tender age in the Verwood machine shop, where they drilled all the transom brackets and made the silencers from brass tube.
One of his first jobs (1946) was to stand in the road with a red flag. The converted garage didn't have enough room for the tube as delivered, so it protruded through a hole in the wall out into the road - he would hold the flag to stop approaching traffic while the tube was cut inside the building.
His motor came about because of the well known (within the factory) variable power output from seemingly identical motors, which was put down to random matching of tolerances. He was, as you suggest, choosing the best of the stanbard components from those available.
So it is, by definition, a perfectly standard motor. I can't detect any outwardly visible differences from the 1982 model in my workshop except the tank on his is a little better. There are no non-standard parts, and it is not an experimental one-off. It is just assembled with a whole heap more care than your normal run-of-the-mill Model 110.
Others at the factory were aware of the project, as I have said. Maurice was proud of his motor, and the fact that he kept it all this time speaks volumes.
One of his first jobs (1946) was to stand in the road with a red flag. The converted garage didn't have enough room for the tube as delivered, so it protruded through a hole in the wall out into the road - he would hold the flag to stop approaching traffic while the tube was cut inside the building.
His motor came about because of the well known (within the factory) variable power output from seemingly identical motors, which was put down to random matching of tolerances. He was, as you suggest, choosing the best of the stanbard components from those available.
So it is, by definition, a perfectly standard motor. I can't detect any outwardly visible differences from the 1982 model in my workshop except the tank on his is a little better. There are no non-standard parts, and it is not an experimental one-off. It is just assembled with a whole heap more care than your normal run-of-the-mill Model 110.
Others at the factory were aware of the project, as I have said. Maurice was proud of his motor, and the fact that he kept it all this time speaks volumes.
You will notice that there is corrosion on the air intake. Apart from that it's pretty good.
Apart from that I am having immense trouble with photobucket this evening. This could well be post lunchtime alcohol related, and as some of you know the dreaded booze has been a medically banned thing for some time - up until yesterday.