<VV> I don't understand this    my  simple short    explaination

Hugo Miller hugo at aruncoaches.co.uk
Wed May 22 14:09:47 EDT 2019

So it's the timing that's the real issue ;)
Lots of British cars of the 50's and 60's, including my wife's everyday 
transport, a 1958 Morris Minor Tourer, had crank handles. They only 
disappeared when alternators replaced dynamos (generators) in the late 
60's. For many decades prior to that, cars had had an automatic 
(centrifugal) ignition advance, plus a vacuum retard in most cases.
I believe I'm correct in saying it was Henry Leland, boss of Cadillac, 
who demanded an electric starter after a colleague died from 
complications when he broke his arm (or maybe his jaw?) while trying to 
rescue a lady motorist who was stranded in a flood, and the car did what 
you describe - kicked back at him.
That spelled the end of steam cars of course.

On 2019-05-22 11:34, roboman91324 at aol.com wrote:
> Hugo,
> A weak battery will cause the motor to turn slower than usual when
> you go to start it. If the timing is a little too far advanced, it
> could cause the spark plug to fire before the piston reaches
> top-dead-center (TDC) and the motor will turn backward while the
> starter motor is engaged with the flywheel. This might break the
> starter nose. If there was a strong battery, the starter would turn
> the motor faster and the greater rotational inertia of the flywheel
> and motor would move the motor along even if a cylinder fired 
> slightly
> before TDC. Antique cars that start with a hand crank would generally
> have a manual lever of some sort in the passenger compartment that
> would retard the ignition timing for the purpose of starting. If you
> forgot to retard the timing, you could end up with a broken arm when
> the motor kicked back. Once the motor was running, you would advance
> the lever and drive off with two good arms. This inertial phenomenon
> is why motor ignition is designed to allow more advanced timing at
> higher RPMs The motor's rotational inertia is sufficient to move the
> engine along even though the air/fuel ignition starts significantly
> before the pistons reach the power stroke.
> Doc
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> In a message dated 5/22/2019 7:04:25 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> virtualvairs-request at corvair.org writes:
>> Message: 3
>> Date: Wed, 22 May 2019 01:48:23 -0400
>> From: Hugo Miller <hugo at aruncoaches.co.uk [1]>
>> To: <virtualvairs at corvair.org [2]>
>> Subject: Re: <VV> I don't understand this my simple short
>> explaination
>> Message-ID: <8086f62e3c90c4176cd46dc29125eac9 at aruncoaches.co.uk
>> [3]>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>> So you're saying kicking back will cause the starter to break, not
>> a weak battery? That makes more sense. Don't see why a weak battery
>> would make it kick back though?
>> On 2019-05-20 13:56, N2VZD TIM via VirtualVairs wrote:
>>> Try a weak battery start on a std shift Corvair sometime if you
>> have
>>> a starter nose to waste.
>>> Think on it , if the motor starts to turn over way too? slow ,
>> has
>>> spark and gas , it will get mad and kick back or grunt.. It does
>> in
>>> starter drives even on other Pre computer? ?cars.. other things
>> that
>>> do in starter noses / drives is timing too far advanced. Trying
>> to
>>> start a warm motor with timing too far ahead will almost always?
>>> duplicate the situation. It will also speed up flywheel failure.
>>> ?So if the car grunts when trying to start ,I would? stop and fix
>> the
>>> problem before it does worse.?If the flywheel is loose enough to
>> do
>>> in
>>> a stater , you have heard it rattle , or even felt the vibration
>> at
>>> certain RPMs.Regards, Tim Colson?
> Links:
> ------
> [1] mailto:hugo at aruncoaches.co.uk
> [2] mailto:virtualvairs at corvair.org
> [3] mailto:8086f62e3c90c4176cd46dc29125eac9 at aruncoaches.co.uk

More information about the VirtualVairs mailing list