It's been discussed in the past that the British Seagull company succumbed to cheap competion in the form of imports from the east in the mid to late 1970s, reducing their business to the point that they were reduced to being a small producer. With the similar downward spiral the UK motorcycle industry had.
When you look at this engine (Ignoring the price!) You can see the problem seagull must have had. Looking closely at this one, it is a fairly cheap and quick copy of the seagull layout, air cooled, cheap exhaust arrangement, and a fairly neat tank arrangement, with cowl, that would have given a "modern" look at the time. I wonder what the selling price was v the cost of a model 40 at the time?
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/271139440834? ... 1438.l2648
Seagull's competition 1970s
Moderators: John@sos, charlesp, Charles uk, RickUK, Petergalileo
Re: Seagull's competition 1970s
What were the Americans making at that time? Mid 1970s
Re: Seagull's competition 1970s
Even the American motors from the late 40's were more advanced than the seagulls of the 60's and US manufacturers had a large HP range of motors.
What did we have in the 50's & 60's? Most, if not all, British motors still had heavy cast iron barrels and anything over 8hp, you needed two men to lift.
You only have to look at the price of a late seagull like the QB and what you could get for the same price else where, the cheap imported motors like the one you linked to, were air cooled and a lot cheaper.
Like the British Anzani 5hp, one ugly motor and it stayed the same from the 1940's to its death in the 70's, i think.
A lot of British industry disappeared because it didn't move with the times.
What did we have in the 50's & 60's? Most, if not all, British motors still had heavy cast iron barrels and anything over 8hp, you needed two men to lift.
You only have to look at the price of a late seagull like the QB and what you could get for the same price else where, the cheap imported motors like the one you linked to, were air cooled and a lot cheaper.
Like the British Anzani 5hp, one ugly motor and it stayed the same from the 1940's to its death in the 70's, i think.
A lot of British industry disappeared because it didn't move with the times.
Last edited by Keith.P on Thu Feb 07, 2013 5:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Horsley-Anarak
- Posts: 2838
- Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:42 pm
- Location: Surrey
Re: Seagull's competition 1970s
OMC were producing very nice small twins at that time, I like the 6hp twin Johnson or evinrude ( buy one and see what you are missing), way better than a Seagull, until you need to mend it, lots more bits. Also Mercury were making good small engines.
I believe there were few engines in the seventies that were as simple as a Seagull, but there were more attractive ones . It was at this time that the complications and inbuilt obsolescence began.
I have often looked at the TOMOS 4, and wondered if they are any good.
H-A
I believe there were few engines in the seventies that were as simple as a Seagull, but there were more attractive ones . It was at this time that the complications and inbuilt obsolescence began.
I have often looked at the TOMOS 4, and wondered if they are any good.
H-A
Re: Seagull's competition 1970s
The Tomos motor is air cooled and a very reliable light motor and with revers gear.
-
skyetoyman
- Posts: 630
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 11:48 am
- Location: Glendale , Isle of Skye
- Contact:
Re: Seagull's competition 1970s
very nice -- how do you know they are twins ? Plus the don't look that small to me.
LLS c 1961 on a crescent 42 boat c 1980 + wspcl c 1976 + 102 SD8561 c 1944 + 102 ACR 1948
Re: Seagull's competition 1970s
Maybe not twins, but lightweight and perfect runners 
So at what point should Seagull have developed new models, and what should they have done?
So at what point should Seagull have developed new models, and what should they have done?
Re: Seagull's competition 1970s
I think the point is not what or when but rather was it possible. Although the motors had sold well, they hadn't even scratched the surface of the larger markets; they were never a volume seller in the way that American manufacturers were. For example, the annual pre-war output of the Johnson factory in the USA was many times greater than Seagull production from 1931 until 1945 combined.
The mass production of motors on an industrial scale required a capital investment that couldn't be provided by the revenue from British Seagull's sales, and even though the company was profitable - when they moved to the Holes Bay factory in the mid fifties they did it entirely on their own bank balance with no borrowing - there was never the money to build the modern facilities that a truly modern motor would need.
There were attempts to turn the company around even later than the mid seventies with the aid of large (for the day) government grants in the form of loans, but the arithmetic never stacked up. New models could only be realistically planned if they utilised existing machinery, and that wasn't really good enough. Models like the Kingfisher were good motors, at least the power head was, but it was let down by the lack of a proper leg among other things.
Way Hope knew it was a hopeless future; he confided over a whisky to Pam Bate (who succeeded him) in 1971, a short time before his death, that British Seagull had about twenty five years left. The factory closed in 1996, so the old boy had it nailed.
The mass production of motors on an industrial scale required a capital investment that couldn't be provided by the revenue from British Seagull's sales, and even though the company was profitable - when they moved to the Holes Bay factory in the mid fifties they did it entirely on their own bank balance with no borrowing - there was never the money to build the modern facilities that a truly modern motor would need.
There were attempts to turn the company around even later than the mid seventies with the aid of large (for the day) government grants in the form of loans, but the arithmetic never stacked up. New models could only be realistically planned if they utilised existing machinery, and that wasn't really good enough. Models like the Kingfisher were good motors, at least the power head was, but it was let down by the lack of a proper leg among other things.
Way Hope knew it was a hopeless future; he confided over a whisky to Pam Bate (who succeeded him) in 1971, a short time before his death, that British Seagull had about twenty five years left. The factory closed in 1996, so the old boy had it nailed.
Re: Seagull's competition 1970s
Seagull must have been on a slippery slope from not much after WWII when you look at what others companies were making by the 50's based on some of the online ads I see here in UT for old outboards. When you look at the OMC motors of the 60's and 70's then you can see the inevitability of where things were going to go when mass production techniques started to bring the relative costs of products down. Then not only did you not have anything close to the latest technology with the Seagull motor, but they were relatively pricey for their basic and simple construction. The OMC motors from the 70's period must also have been good motors because there seem to be plenty still in service.
IMO the things that led to an inevitable demise for Seagull were one, that they didn't produce a range of motors from say 2 hp - 100 hp or whatever the range was in those days. It is very difficult to be in a market that you only have a small part of due to your limited product range and also manufacturers usually make much more money of the high end stuff in addition to the volume savings.. Secondly, speed - from my personal observations boating on the Welsh coast as a child, suddenly the appearance of motors like the Archimedes Penta meant that people could zip around in the little dinghies at a fast pace and so whereas the Seagull had been vastly superior to rowing, it couldn't compete with mans natural desire for speed. Just having the eyes of a teenager interested in all things mechanical it was obvious to see the dramatic tail off in Seagull sales. Thirdly, they were caught in a time warp, which could have been caused by resting on their laurels, or never having the profits to allow investment during the successful years to develop their product. While my Seagulls still do a pretty good job today, they are utterly unsuitable for the average person of today, who has no desire or skills to tinker with things and doesn't want to get oily and smelly, they just want to push a button and go. I think this change started also in around the mid 70's, where reliability and user friendliness of all things motorized started to get us away from carrying a toolbox everywhere. While Seagulls were far from unreliable, you do just need that little bit of mechanical nouse to have a positive experience, the average person will likely be cursing and maligning what in someone else's hands would be a "first pull starting", wonderful piece of equipment.
Too some degree the whole concept of the Seagull just faded away, I doubt that had they been given a blank cheque for product development and finance to keep everything going and market their products to the ends of the earth that if still going today they would be producing anything resembling the original product in terms of it's function, I guess there's a reason that if you took the badges of "modern" outboard motors you wouldn't be able to tell them apart (obviously some are identical because they are just re-badged models made by the same manufacturer), the reason I believe is because they are making what the vast majority want, and there came a point where the low revving, big propeller, displacement speed of the Seagull concept was no longer what most felt they needed.
History should not however judge Seagull as harshly as other British companies that bit the dust, they never were a huge concern, unlike BSA and Triumph who at one point where at the pinnacle of motorcycle design and volume and yet just pissed it all away. I recently read John Rosamond's book Save the Triumph Bonneville about the Meridan Co Op. What happened to cause the collapse of the BSA group, which included Triumph, in such a short space of time was just criminal. With just minimal investment in machinery and development, when things were going well, failure could have been avoided. The current success of the reborn Triumph really only goes to rub salt in the wounds.
IMO the things that led to an inevitable demise for Seagull were one, that they didn't produce a range of motors from say 2 hp - 100 hp or whatever the range was in those days. It is very difficult to be in a market that you only have a small part of due to your limited product range and also manufacturers usually make much more money of the high end stuff in addition to the volume savings.. Secondly, speed - from my personal observations boating on the Welsh coast as a child, suddenly the appearance of motors like the Archimedes Penta meant that people could zip around in the little dinghies at a fast pace and so whereas the Seagull had been vastly superior to rowing, it couldn't compete with mans natural desire for speed. Just having the eyes of a teenager interested in all things mechanical it was obvious to see the dramatic tail off in Seagull sales. Thirdly, they were caught in a time warp, which could have been caused by resting on their laurels, or never having the profits to allow investment during the successful years to develop their product. While my Seagulls still do a pretty good job today, they are utterly unsuitable for the average person of today, who has no desire or skills to tinker with things and doesn't want to get oily and smelly, they just want to push a button and go. I think this change started also in around the mid 70's, where reliability and user friendliness of all things motorized started to get us away from carrying a toolbox everywhere. While Seagulls were far from unreliable, you do just need that little bit of mechanical nouse to have a positive experience, the average person will likely be cursing and maligning what in someone else's hands would be a "first pull starting", wonderful piece of equipment.
Too some degree the whole concept of the Seagull just faded away, I doubt that had they been given a blank cheque for product development and finance to keep everything going and market their products to the ends of the earth that if still going today they would be producing anything resembling the original product in terms of it's function, I guess there's a reason that if you took the badges of "modern" outboard motors you wouldn't be able to tell them apart (obviously some are identical because they are just re-badged models made by the same manufacturer), the reason I believe is because they are making what the vast majority want, and there came a point where the low revving, big propeller, displacement speed of the Seagull concept was no longer what most felt they needed.
History should not however judge Seagull as harshly as other British companies that bit the dust, they never were a huge concern, unlike BSA and Triumph who at one point where at the pinnacle of motorcycle design and volume and yet just pissed it all away. I recently read John Rosamond's book Save the Triumph Bonneville about the Meridan Co Op. What happened to cause the collapse of the BSA group, which included Triumph, in such a short space of time was just criminal. With just minimal investment in machinery and development, when things were going well, failure could have been avoided. The current success of the reborn Triumph really only goes to rub salt in the wounds.
1975 Forty Plus L/S 30 hrs from new
1976 Forty Plus L/S 1 Gal. Long Range tank
1983 Silver Century 90 EFNR 32 hrs from new
1976 Forty Plus L/S 1 Gal. Long Range tank
1983 Silver Century 90 EFNR 32 hrs from new
Re: Seagull's competition 1970s
Personally I think that seagull could of developed their products cheaply in the sixties, by switching to 25:1 mix, and in the case of the forty, changing the tank and adding a shroud, twist grip and recoil. A simple centrifugal clutch on the direct drive models would not have cost a lot to develop. This along with some serious cost cutting would have kept them more competitive. By the time they did try and develop their products, like the QB it was too late.
The Japanese are always ploughing money into developments every year, seagull could have done this?
Imagine a 1960s forty with roller bearings, oil seals, separate small oil tank, tiny vacuum oil pump on 50:1 mix, with twist grip and recoil start, as well as a shrouded power head. It would have been a winner!
The Japanese are always ploughing money into developments every year, seagull could have done this?
Imagine a 1960s forty with roller bearings, oil seals, separate small oil tank, tiny vacuum oil pump on 50:1 mix, with twist grip and recoil start, as well as a shrouded power head. It would have been a winner!
Re: Seagull's competition 1970s
I think that Forty Plus has put his finger on it-what people wanted in an Outboard Motor had changed by the early seventies.The choice available to the buyer had grown substantially and indeed the buyer himself had changed.The immediate post war generation were happy to get their hands dirty so to speak-not so their children. In Business situations such as these the concept of Marketing comes to the fore - the image of the product, how it is perceived by its particular target market,its ' position viv a vis its' competion all become important.What do other people think of you as the purchaser of a Seagull Outboard ?
In the Fifties you were happy to be able to afford an Outboard -'image' didn't come into it.
In this respect the Seagull was compromised.When I was a child in the Sixties I remember thinking how uncool the Seagull looked with its' primitive starting procedure and exposed Flywheel etc while other guys' Dads had an Evinrude Yachtwin with a twist grip-Wow! Obviously I've got sense since then but I do recall (younger) people sneering at what most of us now recognise as remarkable motors.
A way to modify Image might have been to get involved in high speed Motors,modify appearance,colours ,Autolube and so on -as has been suggested.That said however, one would have to actively rebrand the product -perhaps with a new name-to overcome the image of what seemed at the time to be an old fashioned product.In hindsight maybe a venture into four stroke engines might have worked-who knows?
In the Fifties you were happy to be able to afford an Outboard -'image' didn't come into it.
In this respect the Seagull was compromised.When I was a child in the Sixties I remember thinking how uncool the Seagull looked with its' primitive starting procedure and exposed Flywheel etc while other guys' Dads had an Evinrude Yachtwin with a twist grip-Wow! Obviously I've got sense since then but I do recall (younger) people sneering at what most of us now recognise as remarkable motors.
A way to modify Image might have been to get involved in high speed Motors,modify appearance,colours ,Autolube and so on -as has been suggested.That said however, one would have to actively rebrand the product -perhaps with a new name-to overcome the image of what seemed at the time to be an old fashioned product.In hindsight maybe a venture into four stroke engines might have worked-who knows?
Re: Seagull's competition 1970s
when i started fishing on the north coast of jersey there were 20 boats lobstering from my bay ---me and one other full time---the rest part time----everyone had silver seagulls apart from me with my 102---i found the seagull easy to start----i would run it on the trailer for a minute before launching ----gently warm it up then stop it----- and it would almost invariably start first pull when the boat was pushed out----fairly essential because if it didn t the waves put you back on the beach and you had to start again----the problems with seagulls(which i didn t realise were problems until i got a modern outboard)----in no particular order----whiskers on the plug----we all carryied brass wire brushes-----points----ladies nail file----spray up the air intake----spanner to crack the bottom nut on the carb and drop the water out ----and of course having to stop and refuel-----when you are doing these things all the time you get very quick and just accept them ----however about 1966 my engine was stolen and i was offered a newish pristine condition evirude twin fisherman? 6 hp----- it would start as easily as the seagull and run without stopping till i was back in----that was the begining of the end for seagulls in our bay---the first people that followed me bought mercurys ----they were advertised at the time as fast sexy engines ----but they were bad starters--------i lifted the cowl of the evinrude a couple of times looked in --scratched my head in a puzzled fashion then sent it to the evinrude dealers at the end of the season to sort out ready for next year-----but i have a far greater fondness for seagulls that is why i am on a old seagull forum and not an old evinrude forum-----regards blue
Re: Seagull's competition 1970s
The one thing I really love about Seagulls is the ability to start and run the thing out of the water due to the impeller design. If it's not been run for a while it's great just to be able to start it quickly just to make sure it will do so when you get to the water, much better than having to mess with hoses and muffs etc.
It's a very useful feature on an auxiliary motor, as a quick check it's functional, but on some boats with the mounts that hinge up and down it's much easier to start the motor and then lower it into the water than try to get at it in it's working position. There are many benefits to the newer outboard designs, but the impellers need for a water supply is a big minus compared to the simple Seagull setup, which also doesn't need to be changed every few years as a precaution.
Otherwise what Blue is saying ties in with my experience of Seagull losing their market to sleeker and more user friendly designs - that's user friendly until something goes wrong, then the Seagull is infinitely more user friendly to work on - but for many that wouldn't have mattered because they would have taken either motor to a dealer at the first sign of trouble not being the practical fix it types.
It's certainly hard to be nostalgic about old Evinrudes or the like. I have an older 78 Chrysler 7.5 hp which is a very nice little motor, but I don't really have any sentimental attachment to it and if needs be it could easily be replaced by quite a number of other outboards that would look pretty much the same and I certainly wouldn't be getting tearful if I ended up selling it to get something else, whereas my Seagulls will still be sitting in my garage, in a line on their rack, regardless of what newbies creep into my garage and onto my boats.
It's a very useful feature on an auxiliary motor, as a quick check it's functional, but on some boats with the mounts that hinge up and down it's much easier to start the motor and then lower it into the water than try to get at it in it's working position. There are many benefits to the newer outboard designs, but the impellers need for a water supply is a big minus compared to the simple Seagull setup, which also doesn't need to be changed every few years as a precaution.
Otherwise what Blue is saying ties in with my experience of Seagull losing their market to sleeker and more user friendly designs - that's user friendly until something goes wrong, then the Seagull is infinitely more user friendly to work on - but for many that wouldn't have mattered because they would have taken either motor to a dealer at the first sign of trouble not being the practical fix it types.
It's certainly hard to be nostalgic about old Evinrudes or the like. I have an older 78 Chrysler 7.5 hp which is a very nice little motor, but I don't really have any sentimental attachment to it and if needs be it could easily be replaced by quite a number of other outboards that would look pretty much the same and I certainly wouldn't be getting tearful if I ended up selling it to get something else, whereas my Seagulls will still be sitting in my garage, in a line on their rack, regardless of what newbies creep into my garage and onto my boats.
1975 Forty Plus L/S 30 hrs from new
1976 Forty Plus L/S 1 Gal. Long Range tank
1983 Silver Century 90 EFNR 32 hrs from new
1976 Forty Plus L/S 1 Gal. Long Range tank
1983 Silver Century 90 EFNR 32 hrs from new
Re: Seagull's competition 1970s
As a brat I had an 8 foot ali dinghy with my 1st 40+ on the back, a truly sweet little motor. My sort of friend of the time had a fibreglass dinghy about the same size with a 1 1/2hp Tas like the one on evilBay. His dad had a mower shop and sold them as well. It was a complete and total mutt. Hard to start, loud past the telling and slower than the 40+ if there was a head on sea or current. It was really REALLY loud! I can still hear the 'ch-ching, ch-ching' as he pulled the starter rope while I circled at low speed and supplied useful comments like "you starting it or winding it up?" "Want a push?" Probably not best helpful.
Re: Seagull's competition 1970s
Blue's recollections are a valuable snapshot of what was going on in the world of outboards. I suspect - but don't know - that here in the UK the American imports were not so readily available, so maybe the effect came a bit later here. Perhaps British Seagull were encouraged by increased sales in the US, even as their products were becoming pale shadows of those of their competitors. There were tests in magazines that still showed British Seagull as being a 'worth considewring' up to around 1977; I have a copy of a comparative test done in a boating magazine of the day and it's easy to read between the lines.
The testers were praising the Seagull's larger tank, but in terms of everything else it was plain the opposition won hands down.
The testers were praising the Seagull's larger tank, but in terms of everything else it was plain the opposition won hands down.