Seagull engines.

[bazza white]

Any owners/fans here.

Slippery slope. Started with a long shaft but then got these 2. The long shaft no use to me but but want to get something to replace. The other 2 will be staying with the clutched used regular for our tender and the other going to be stripped and polished.

[seapod]

Only for powerboat racing, not for basic tendering

https://foweyharbour.co.uk/events-calendar/lerryn-...

Very serious, international teams last year from ES and NL

https://m.facebook.com/groups/488807355132501/perm...

Edited by seapod on Monday 2nd June 20:15

[seapod]

[Nico Adie]

I had a Forty Plus on our first little dinghy, was totally unreliable and I hated everything about it other than the rich two stroke smell. To be fair the reliability was probably more down to the 9yr old me not knowing what to do properly, but I didn't have any issues with the Mariner 2hp that replaced it.

[Decky_Q]

Why do people like them so much? Is it like owning a grey fergie tractor where it's no longer useful for it's original purpose, or are they actually worth having as a backup? Knowing that a backup needs to be MORE reliable than the main engine.

[Huntsman]

Its possible with a very well set up Seagull to start it by grabbing hold of the flywheel and giving it a spin, no rope, I've never managed.

[hidetheelephants]

Decky_Q said:

Why do people like them so much? Is it like owning a grey fergie tractor where it's no longer useful for it's original purpose, or are they actually worth having as a backup? Knowing that a backup needs to be MORE reliable than the main engine.

Objectively they're in the same realm as TE35s and land rovers, a Tohatsu 2.5 or derivative beats it on every functional criteria, it's lighter, has a recoil start, a dead man's switch, doesn't dribble disgusting oily gunge everywhere, more economic, less vibratory. One in good condition will start as reliably but most aren't these days as the youngest is getting on for 40 years old. They're a terrible choice as a back-up, have one as a hobby if you must.

[2xChevrons]

hidetheelephants said:

Objectively they're in the same realm as TE35s and land rovers, a Tohatsu 2.5 or derivative beats it on every functional criteria, it's lighter, has a recoil start, a dead man's switch, doesn't dribble disgusting oily gunge everywhere, more economic, less vibratory. One in good condition will start as reliably but most aren't these days as the youngest is getting on for 40 years old. They're a terrible choice as a back-up, have one as a hobby if you must.

Well said. And I say that as someone who (with heart, not head) loves Fergies, Land Rovers, Gardner diesels, Lister stationary engines...and Seagull outboard motors.

My Dad acquired one from Beaulieu auto jumble one year - a 40 Plus, for those who care - and easily got it running with a service and a few spares. Contrary to the reputation, it was always an absolute doddle to start. Second pull when cold, almost as soon as the flywheel began moving when warm. It shoved our various sailing dinghys along various Hampshire harbours and Devon River estuaries very nicely, even in some wet, wild and rainy weather, and didn't mind sitting in the garage for months at a time before being plonked on the transom and fired up.

But when, as a family, we graduated to 'proper' boats and needed a tender outboard, we went to the chandlery and bought a Tohatsu 2.5. Much lighter, easier to use (my sister was prepared to countenance actually using it), quieter, didn't ooze oil and didn't leave a haze screen and oil slick in its path.

Just as you wouldn't choose a TE-20 to plough a field if you were a farmer, a Gardner-powered Seddon Atkinson if you were a haulier, a Land Rover Series IIA if you were a geologist in the Australian outback or a BSA Bantam if you wanted to commute to work on a lightweight motorbike.

Seagulls are absolutely in the same 'classic British engineering' as a Morris Minor, a Landy or a Gardner 6LW. Simplistic but not especially simple, some very original thinking going on, some admirable engineering...but all rooted in a world that was disappearing when these things were made and had entirely vanished when these products finally eked out their last days.

[OutInTheShed]

Decky_Q said:

Why do people like them so much? Is it like owning a grey fergie tractor where it's no longer useful for it's original purpose, or are they actually worth having as a backup? Knowing that a backup needs to be MORE reliable than the main engine.

They can be bought cheaply.
They have no plastic bits to fail unexpectedly.

They are two strokes.
New outboards now are all four strokes, they are heavy and awkward and need to be put down very carefully or the sump oil goes everywhere.
Good small two stroke outboards are now quite hard to find, almost to the point where a Seagull might be worth considering!
Many of the old Yamaha/Honda/Mercury/Mariner/Suzuki/Ermintrude engines are corroded to buggery.
The seagulls are too oily to corrode and perhaps made of better metal?

Personally I have a Yamaha 2HP two stroke, which is light and easy to start.
It's been reliable, I've owned it 20 years.
But these days, it is noisy compared to big four strokes.
It's embarrassing in a quiet place at 7AM when you want to nip ashore for the loo!
Seagulls are not quiet, but their noise is somehow less offensive?

Around the coast, I don't see anyone actually using a Seagull seriously.
My club does a few trips up the river for a barbecue, bring whatever boat/canoe/raft/paddleboard, drink beer.
That's the only time I see Seagull engines getting wet.

My next outboard will be electric.

[21TonyK]

Pile going cheap on fleabay...

[GliderRider]

Decky_Q said:

Why do people like them so much? Is it like owning a grey fergie tractor where it's no longer useful for it's original purpose, or are they actually worth having as a backup? Knowing that a backup needs to be MORE reliable than the main engine.

Seagulls were designed to;

• push displacement boats at, or close to, their hull speed, so they had a large diameter, fine pitch propeller turning relatively slowly.

• survive being dropped overboard; plain bronze bearings, bronze nuts, soldered brass tank, etc. and simple easily-dried electrics.

• survive minimal maintenance. The underwater right-angle gearbox was lubricated with an emulsion of SAE140 oil and sea water. No delicate seals to worry about.

• survive all but the most severe prop strikes without damage. The coil spring prop drive would soak up most knocks, and if it did break, could be changed quickly with only a pair of pliers for the split pin.

• avoid recoil starter issues. The simple rope around the top of a flywheel starter is unlikely to give trouble, whilst a clockspring recoil starter when it goes can leave you stuck. Later versions did have a recoil starter, however taking it off revealed the familiar grooved ring for a rope start.

Seagull outboards are an anachronism these days, particularly from an environmental point of view. However there is a good reason that the word for outboard motor in Pidgin English was 'Sigul'. As with early Land Rovers, Morris Minors and old British motorcycles, the technology is sufficiently basic that parts can be repaired or even made locally more or less anywhere in the world. Not to mention a great support network.

[Simpo Two]

GliderRider said:

* push displacement boats at, or close to, their hull speed, so they had a large diameter, fine pitch propeller turning relatively slowly.

Hydrodynamics isn't my degree subject but wouldn't that be either a fine pitch prop turning quickly or a coarse pitch prop turning slowly?

[2xChevrons]

Simpo Two said:

GliderRider said:

* push displacement boats at, or close to, their hull speed, so they had a large diameter, fine pitch propeller turning relatively slowly.

Hydrodynamics isn't my degree subject but wouldn't that be either a fine pitch prop turning quickly or a coarse pitch prop turning slowly?

Seagulls are distinguished by having props with broad blades and a fine pitch, coupled to a relatively slow-turning engine (a Seagull maxes out at about 3/4 the rpm of a modern small Tohatsu or Yamaha) and a hefty reduction ratio in the final drive.

Designed to shove timber-built displacement workboats, ballasted dinghys and small yachts through choppy seas at handfuls of knots, the Seagull was the equivalent of when you push a car up a driveway - you want a lot of grip (the broad prop blades) and you take a small steps (the fine pitch) and you won't go very fast. But you'll still get the car to move. A more modern outboard would be like trying to push a car while maintaining a running pace and wearing bowling shoes.

It's what made Seagulls (with prop and power properly matched to the craft) slow but relentless - they don't have a lot of prop slip and don't lose thrust when driving up or into a heavy sea.

A Tohatsu will be faster in calm weather, but will slow down a lot more in rough weather. And a Seagull will impart more 'shove' to a properly heavy boat than a Tohatsu with 40% more power. Even if makes a lot more racket, smoke and slick while doing so.

[Simpo Two]

That makes sense, thanks. A bit like being in first gear!

[LotusOmega375D]

I am a landlubber and know nothing about boats, but this thread got me reminiscing. About 45 years ago, we lived in a house that backed onto a canal. My parents bought a new fibreglass rowing boat which was large enough to take a small outboard like the boats in the photos above. My dad bought a secondhand Seagull for it, so we could attempt a few longer journeys. It was awful. An absolute swine to get started and would always conk out numerous times each journey, meaning someone always had to row us back. I remember my dad trying in vain to sort it out in a dustbin full of water! It put us right off going on our boat trips and we soon moved house. So sorry, but no love from me for the Seagull outboard.

[Miserablegit]

seapod said:

Only for powerboat racing, not for basic tendering

https://foweyharbour.co.uk/events-calendar/lerryn-...

Very serious, international teams last year from ES and NL

https://m.facebook.com/groups/488807355132501/perm...

I “competed” in that many years ago…

Edited by seapod on Monday 2nd June 20:15

[Johnniem]

I was bought one by my father (for my dinghy) in 1972. Used it when we were on holiday to gain some 'seamanship' skills. I eventually sold it in 2014. I strongly suspect that it is still in use. Nothing complicated and easy to carry around. Love them and the joy I gleaned from it as a young man. When the old man died in 2000, I inherited his Broom Capricorn, powered by a 5.3 litre Merc with 290 horses to play with (and, in true PH style, straight thought exhausts!). However, my boating days are over now, other than the occasional ferry. Keep enjoying your Seagull engines. They are great!

[GliderRider]

LotusOmega375D said:

I am a landlubber and know nothing about boats, but this thread got me reminiscing. About 45 years ago, we lived in a house that backed onto a canal. My parents bought a new fibreglass rowing boat which was large enough to take a small outboard like the boats in the photos above. My dad bought a secondhand Seagull for it, so we could attempt a few longer journeys. It was awful. An absolute swine to get started and would always conk out numerous times each journey, meaning someone always had to row us back. I remember my dad trying in vain to sort it out in a dustbin full of water! It put us right off going on our boat trips and we soon moved house. So sorry, but no love from me for the Seagull outboard.

One of the problems with Seagulls is that they are all old. I had one which just didn't want to start reliably. Eventually I took the flywheel off, only to discover that the woven insulation on the wire from the coil was crumbling to dust, so the wire was intermittently shorting on the baseplate. Replacing the insulation with a piece of PTFE heatshrink tube restored the spark, and we were back in business.

As someone said to me about British motorbikes, most went through the hands of a succession of impecunious teenagers of varying levels mse of mechanical and electrical aptitude. It was the quality ot maintenance, or lack of, that made them unreliable, not the fundamental design. Once in the hands of an enthusiast willing to devote the time and money to returning them to factory fresh condition, they are a different beasts.

LotusOmega375D, please don't take this as a slur on you or Dad. Just a comment on old British engine-driven devices in general.

[2xChevrons]

GliderRider said:

As someone said to me about British motorbikes, most went through the hands of a succession of impecunious teenagers of varying levels mse of mechanical and electrical aptitude. It was the quality ot maintenance, or lack of, that made them unreliable, not the fundamental design. Once in the hands of an enthusiast willing to devote the time and money to returning them to factory fresh condition, they are a different beasts.

Except that Honda et. al had the crazy idea of making bikes that impecunious teenagers could run without being qualified fitters/machinists/lubricant chemists and dedicating hours of their weekends to keeping their steeds fettled and adjusted and tuned and lubed. And what maintenance the Japanese products did need was usually much simpler and didn't need three varieties of spanner per job and sacrificing significant amounts of skin to protruding fittings.

There's a common thread running through a lot of the loveable 'simplistic but not simple' British engineering, and it's this idea that the end user must accept having to commit to a high degree of fettling and maintenance. An attitude of "we didn't get where we are today by making things easy" or "if you're not prepared to strip down the ignition system every time you want to start and decoke the ports every 100 hours of run time then you're just not cut out to be a biker/sailor/motorist/farmer old boy!" An entire philosophy that drives a nation of tinkerers and Men in Sheds and cottage industries of clever chaps selling workarounds to all the flaws the other clever chaps in the factory thoughtfully left in. People endlessly fixing and servicing Seagulls, Suffolk Punches, Morris Minors, Little Grey Fergies, Triumph Bonnevilles, Lister CSs and all the other awkwardly loveable members of the British mechanical menagerie. And all united by a steadfast refusal to accept that machinery should just work without effort.

[hidetheelephants]

The Seagull was perfectly acceptable when it was first introduced in the 1930s, other than introducing transistorised ignition and recoil start at the end of the 1980s it did not evolve. This is madness when even the worst of the competition did better, from the early 70s european, japanese and US competitors increasingly outsold Seagull.