Nomenclature

[Gannet]

I have taken a shine to the early model 40s, and am curious about the model numbers/names and for what they stand.

F obviously stands for Forty. I have read recently on this site (?), that V stands for Villiers. So FV is a Forty with a Villiers carburettor, and presumably FVP is a Forty plus with a Villiers.
But LM and LS - what do they stand for; if indeed anything?
Then SJM and SJP. Does the M stand for Minus and the P for Plus? Then what does the SJ stand for?

I am sure one of the many experts on this site knows the answers, and hopefully will explain.

Jeremy

[charlesp]

Hmm.

The original Little Model Forty was the F, rapidly becoming the FV when they replaced the tiny Amal carburettor with the Villiers model, and it was occasionally referred to as the VF.

The larger version of that same motor - the FVP - was the Super Forty Plus.

The LM and LS versions of those same motors were known as above, bizarrely.

The SJM was the Forty Minus and the SJP was the Forty Plus

Then you had the better known version of the F which was the Featherweight, and the FP was the Forty Plus

It should have been a clear system of coding, and I'm sure the original 'Forty' referring to a hugely optimistic forty pounds of thrust was a good idea, the V for Villiers made sense, and the P for Plus. Maybe the 'Super' bit was a bit of advertising puff that contaminated the original idea.

The L is an odd one - I have no idea. M for Minus, P for Plus, that's fine.

But SJM and SJP? - Dunno. The other Charles and I have discussed this with each other and with past Seagull employees, to no avail

[Gannet]

Thanks Charles,

It was a fairly simple question, but inevitably the answer was not as straightforward as I had hoped. Typical, I suppose, of industrial manufacturing history.

Thanks again.

Jeremy

[charlesp]

I have tried - (and I'm not alone) to make sense of British Seagull engine codes for some time. Occasionally they make perfect sense - like Wipac Silver Century Plus Clutch Long, but usually it's just a mess.

Much of the story of this little company makes little sense. Why did they ever make a Century when they had the 102? Why didn't they make reverse gearbox models from 1936 up to the late seventies? Why did the 102 series have no choke but the Silver Centuries with the same carburettor had one? Why did the early 102s have that bizarre oil nipple arrangement rather than a filler cap? Why on Earth did they introduce the 170?

[Gannet]

I dont know enough about Seagulls to say why did they do this, and why didnt they do the other.
However, I have just come in from working on the gearbox of my SJM with the question - why the devil didnt they fit dynamic shaft seals, which was proven technology by the mid thirties. Perhaps cost?
Jeremy

[fortyplus]

Seagulls way of doing things seems to be like so many industry practices from the post war period up to the demise of most of our manufacturing businesses. I'm not sure at what level many decisions were made, but looking back it seems if there was a way to stay in a time warp or, do it the more difficult or unreliable way, that was the one that was chosen. Whether outboards, motorcycles, cars etc. while many external factors were at work, we just seemed to have a management mindset that was utterly self destructive. The seals you talk of are a good example, where so many where put off Seagull motors due to oil leaking onto various parts of their boat or belongings, when all the time a solution, which must have cost very little, was already at hand. People grew to dislike British Motorcycles for many reasons, but oil leaks were up there on the list of complaints, switching to horizontally split crankcases could so easily cure that issue but we continued with that attitude that anything British was still the best, even when it became patently obvious that it no longer was. Having lived through that period as a youngster, I saw it differently as I witnessed many of the consumer products first hand and many were crap and ultimately deserved the fate that befell them. Now I look back, with sadness and struggle to understand how these things were allowed to happen and how we could just have let our proud heritage become a joke - particularly to foreigners. When you hear the way British made products from the late sixties and seventies are ridiculed and the reputation they acquired here in the USA, it's truly very uncomfortable to hear for someone born in an era when we were so proud of our country.

[Charles uk]

Seagulls were one of the very few outboards that could & still can survive total immersion!

Let's not be too critical without applying some thought, we're talking about a series of motors with a life expectancy many times that of the current available range.
OK they have a power to weight ratio much lower than their modern relatives, but how many of them could you leave in a shed for 20 years & expect to start & use after 10 minutes of no cost TLC?

Bronze bearings in good condition don't require oil seals & certainly don't require the frictional losses that would come with having 4 of them.
Instead of moaning about oil escaping past your bearings & complaining about the design, ask yourself why if these bearings are well past their best why haven't I replaced them, the answer is, because the motor still does what it says on the tin without spending a penny on it!

As a matter of interest are there any Seagull owners out there that have replaced any of the bearings in their Seagulls ever?
I ask this question having a fair idea of how many sets of bearings have been sold in the last 10 years.

These were not built by Rolls Royce as a design statement but were designed & built by British Seagull as low cost petrol powered paddles!

[Hugz]

Talking of RR's I had an early shadow with a rear gearbox seal that was designed to seep oil. I had to wipe it clean to pass (aus) MOT. Bought it in Troon before shipping down under.

[fortyplus]

When I'm being "critical" I'm looking at it from the point of view of the average punter, who doesn't give a crap about the benefits that those of us who are enlightened see in a Seagull. Most people buy things based on appearance and what it can do for them immediately. When motorized vehicles etc. first became available they were primarily operated by people with some mechanical nouse, probably out of necessity. As incomes increased and the cost of these items fell, they then became available to the masses, the majority of whom neither have the know how, interest or any other inclination to do anything other than just use the item. While a Seagull is a very simple piece of equipment, to those whose garages and sheds are replete with all sorts of mechanical items in the process of being dismantled and restored, just the starting procedure from cold is beyond most and in no time it's the biggest piece of junk ever made because it won't start, usually due to operator error and the inability to recognise that, or the ability to fix something simple like flooding it.

I grew up in a family of very practical and resourceful people who could fix, make or design just about anything, I thought everyone was like that. It wasn't until I got married that I was introduced to another world of people who could not fathom things I took for granted and would stand open mouthed in amazement when in a couple of minutes you could fix something they'd had problems with for months - they were as amazed by my abilities as I was that there were people so hopelessly impractical. Folks like that don't care if their outboard can survive full immersion, they wouldn't be able to follow the procedure Seagull published nor care to, they just claim on their insurance and/or buy a new one.

My personal opinion is that the Seagull design was utterly brilliant in it's inception and in it's time, but unfortunately nothing stands still and so it reached a point for the majority of potential owners where the minuses outweighed the obvious pluses that we still see. When you are still making the same basic design of anything mechanical, from many decades earlier, history shows you will go out of business. While I'm a Seagull believer, it still saddens me that yet another legendary British manufacturer bit the dust by continuing to build an outdated product with shortcomings that the majority of potential buyers did not want to work around.

I was reading an article earlier today about a 1930's Harley Davidson that had a constant loss oil system, it had a mechanical pump but also hand pump that you would pump every couple of miles at high speed to keep things lubed. The idea was that by having the oil run out on to the road through the side casing, the motor was always lubricated with fresh oil - Harley thought this was such a plus they openly criticized Indian motorcycles for having a more traditional system where used oil was recirculated - I found myself amazed that that was ever considered acceptable, imagine today's roads if all vehicles operated like that? suddenly in comparison a little Seagull oil literally seemed "like a drop in the ocean".

If you look at cars as an example, why does no one build a basic car with very simple mechanicals that could run and run, and be easily fixed with simple hand tools by the owner if required? - because it would be an awful car in every measurable sense compared to a modern one and 99.9% of people would not buy it regardless of the promotion the company could do extolling it's virtues. Only a few "crazies" like us might see the attraction of buying a car that could last a lifetime with some basic tlc and be prepared to overlook the absence of admiration from our peers and other road users.

[Grumpy]

Congratulations fortyplus.
A very forceful, decisive , convincing opinion.
Pretty near unbeatable.
I'm keeping my head down though in case theres any hot exchanges.

[Gannet]

All I originally asked was what does SJM and SJP stand for!
I wish I hadn't then commented on gearbox shaft seals!
An interesting debate.
Our interest in Seagulls does not automatically mean that we defend every aspect of their design and manufacture, but can take a balanced view and indeed like or love or possibly hate their idiosyncrasies.

We should be aware that any hobby (such as Seagulls) cannot be fully justified or sensibly defended. Hobbies or interests are one of the aspects that make us individuals. It must be better (surely ???) than sticking stamps in an album or hitting a small white ball into a hole. Just joking!

Jeremy

[charlesp]

Niander, point this fortyplus chap to the thread running on YBW about Dylan Winter's Tohatsu!

[fortyplus]

Apologies for getting off topic and course. I can't help with the SJM SJP clarification - perhaps they stood for Seals Just Might last and Seals Jizz Persistently . I'm sorry you mentioned the seals too, now I've dug myself a hole and upset the die hard faithful .

One further point as I never do know when to stop digging, if the Seagull design had been something that could have made it through into the 21st century then you can bet the Japanese would be making their clone still, instead of seeking their original inspiration from OMC.

Having said the above, I recently read a thread about "what is the most reliable outboard", one brave soul did put forward Seagull in the face of everyone else going for the OMC's from the 80's and early 90's with a few Yamaha supporters. I agree with the Seagull supporter who while saying they weren't fast, said if the only parameter was reliability, then the Seagulls had to be right up there.

[charlesp]

You haven't upset anybody.

Your enthusiasm for oil seals is nothing to be ashamed of!

[fortyplus]

No need to continue hiding in my underground bunker with my Seagull collection then?